Maybe I'm too paranoid! If it's not LLM then I don't think it's a very well-organized post though.
In addition to the emoji, things that jumped out at me were the pervasive use of bullet lists with bold labels and some specific text choices like
> Note: The bash scripts in tools/ dynamically generate Rust code for specialized analysis. This keeps the main codebase clean while allowing complex experiments.
But I did just edit my post to walk it back slightly.
This article looked interesting, but I bounced off it because the author appears to have made heavy use of an LLM to generate the text. How can I trust that the content is worth reading if a person didn't care enough to write it themselves?
I'm not sure I agree, since there's words like "bookkeeper" that work fine—people just add a stop in front of the k sound and don't really think about it.
What is the point of this reply? This is a set of font files, not an oral history project. The creator is not claiming that this is evidence of their craft or taste.
The question itself would be fine if the asker were actually interested in the answer. What's condescending is asking the question while already knowing the answer, with the unstated ulterior motive of getting the writer to change the method name.
No, Google Reader had a social layer where you could add friends, see items that they recommended, and comment on them. It was really great, but it was ruined by the migration to Google+ before Reader was actually killed.
BTW that Reddit post also has replies confirming my suspicions that the technical content wasn't trustworthy, if anyone felt like I was just being snobby about the LLM writing: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/1mh7q73/comment/n6ubr...