> It's also a mistake that implies a complete lack of familiarity with scientific publishing, unfortunately, which makes it a bit difficult to take your judgements regarding plausibility very seriously.
It's still peer reviewed, and as the sibling comment said, more applicable to this type of research. Also you now went from raising understandable objections to refusing the argument because it comes from a specific journal, which doesn't sound very scientific to me
They are just predicting the next token. In human text it's more common to talk to other people than a computer, so they end up talking to the computers like they were people.
Because java is garbage-collected and doesn't have any of the problems of C++ exceptions, so checked exceptions just become a nuisance of having to try/catch everything.
> There's no point maintaining the illusion that we're soliciting feedback or discussion on the issues tracker when we are not.
You could have just said this (maybe you did when linking the code of conduct) instead of writing a paragraph of confrontational arguments and it would have looked way better imho.
> You may think it hyperbolic but drive-by negativity by non-code-contributor users is the biggest existential risk to projects like Homebrew.
If this was true every oss project would either be dead or be entirely comprised of dicks, neither of which are the case.