This is an at-a-loss, public service created by volunteers who are not necessarily professional software developers. The first version of the website parsed PDFs. It's not obvious at all what exactly they are doing behind the scenes.
I don't see how this is the correct reaction to have, nor whether most of us can claim to have made such a positive social impact with a website.
I would think a much more interesting question is who is targeting a public service informing about wildfires when these get particularly bad.
Ginga is a Brasilian Portuguese word. I spent all of the day of the blackout listening to the radio (as you might guess) and not once heard the terms "ging" or "ging-induced". Also, ginga would not be swing as in cable swing, it would be swing as in swing dance (rhythmic movement specifically to music). When possible explanations were put forward in the media, they were attributed, usually either to the portuguese representative of REN (the Chinese company supplying power structure to the country) or to an analogous representative of Spain (where the fault originated). It was always pretty clear that the fault was unknown, since this was stated plainly by the aforementioned representatives and the prime minister. I respect the language barrier, but it would be good to take it into account.
"Typst Overleaf" sounds like a fine business idea to me, if you give the user the option to export TeX (so that they can then submit it to a journal).
(If you support both LaTeX and Typst, and improve the Overleaf experience somewhat -- which is definitely possible -- I can't imagine you wouldn't steal some market share from Overleaf.)
I'm sorry if you felt that addendum was aggressive. However, I still feel like I'm justified in making it absolutely clear how (and if) I want to be contacted. I am in a complicated position where I'm speaking to a niche -- not an imaginary niche, by any means -- but actually addressing every reader. In the face of this, my option was to clearly state my boundaries, regardless.
I list an email address at the end of every article, for the purposes of discussing the content of the article. I add a "+ext" to every email I list (including the one on my personal home page). I had people ignore the email I stated in the article, find a different email, strip it of the + tags, and email me there in a foreign language and opening with "I assume you speak X" (presumably because of my name?).
I disagree with you that it's fair game to do the above. OSINT is, well, legal, and I'm not trying to hide my identity, clearly. But I would still be upset if, for example, someone wrote to my university email (which is not hard to find out, by your own procedure) regarding this post.
Nonetheless, again, it is not my goal to sound rude, but simply to set boundaries and expectations. I will remove the second sentence towards this goal, but stand by its objective meaning, and will keep the rest as is.
While I agree that it's very questionable that Nature would invite someone to write an obituary (or what have you) and then reject it, I fail to see what's so controversial about the text being overly technical. I work in Physics, and "[...] locus of solutions of sets of polynomial equations by combining the algebraic properties of the rings of polynomials with the geometric properties of this locus, known as a variety" is still an incredibly tough sentence to parse on the first pass. I cannot imagine how it would read for someone who is either unfamiliar (or only passingly familiar) with, for example, the concept of a ring; "algebraic properties of a ring of polynomials"? This just seems like a case of https://xkcd.com/2501/ , with a hint of arrogance in thinking everyone working in STEM must be as comfortable with abstract concepts of mathematics as mathematicians are.
This should be the link. As is, currently, you get a PDF viewer that does not allow zoom (without zooming surrounding UI), and with a weird comments integration.
This is bound to get some criticism (or some tangent-at-best discussion), but it seems like a pretty fair discussion to me.
What I'm missing at the end of the article is the author's point: I believe they're advocating for the use of raw threads and manual management of concurrency, and doing away with the async paraphernalia. But, at the same time, earlier in the article they give the example of networking-related tasks as something that isn't so easy to deal with using only raw threads.
So, taking into account that await&co. are basically syntactic sugar + an API standard (iirc, I haven't used Rust so much lately), I wonder about what the alternative is. In particular, it seems to me like the alternative you could have would be everyone rolling their own "concurrency API", where each crate (inconsistently) exposes some sort of `await()` function, and you have to manually roll your async runtime every time. This would obviously also not be ideal.
Maybe not your point, but a lot of programmers like to take this as "I should invent the Python of quantum computing", which is just about as silly as trying to approach anyone in 1960 and telling them they shouldn't be thinking about electronics at all.
I don't see how this is the correct reaction to have, nor whether most of us can claim to have made such a positive social impact with a website.
I would think a much more interesting question is who is targeting a public service informing about wildfires when these get particularly bad.