> They may not use AI to *check for vulnerabilities*

you didn't read the comment, did you?

Suggested titles (same logic):

LibreOffice breaks download records after GPT-6 Astra is available to the public.

LibreOffice breaks download records after DaVinci Resolve 21.1 is released.

As a person living in the place you're mentioning, I have to confidently state that you've been brainwashed

Let's hope X doesn't pressure GitHub to take the repo down.

It's actually sad to see how deeply do we depend on monopolies.

Thankfully github is but one in an unlimited sea of choice between both hosted and self-hosted git forges all across the world.

Other solutions might not have the exact same functionality, but in this context of mere availability... it really doesn't matter.

Whenever you see a lot of long dashes (—) in a writing, there's a high chance Claude has written it.

Perhaps – but it's a useful grammatical construct in everyday use, handy for structuring sentences.

And with the prevalence of AI, it rubs off on the smelly humans, who also find it useful and use it more as a result. (I used an en dash here instead of an em one – also valid, easier to type, and shorter).

Nah. I NEVER say the dash pre-AI, at least in commoners writings. Maybe in some books etc. The dash you read today is 99.9% AI generated.

I've used it extensively in English due to learning the language through a lot of older books - but I've never bothered to actually pull out the emdash, I would hope people can see that I'm not trying to subtract one sentence from the other.

Where do you think the LLMs got the emdash from? When I worked as a magazine editor we took good care to discern ndash and emdash in printing. In Germany it is a Bindestrich (which links words, hence "bind") and Gedankenstrich (this is where you have a pause in thinking and continue the sentence afterwards).

Like i said, the dash IS a thing, and only in practice used by "experienced writers", common folk NEVER use it. LLMs stole all the books, so obviously the AI spits out dashed like there is no tomorrow.

You cant argue about this, just looking at github, i never saw dashes used pre AI. Today you see a dashes in code comments, PRs, issues etc EVERY time. Its all AI generated.

On the rare occasions I used Word to write things in the past, it would replace dashes with em-dash.

I normally use dashes when writing, never bothered myself with writing an em-dash properly otherwise.

This heuristic is commonly believed — and expressed on this website — but is idiotic. Plenty of people have known how to use em dashes when writing on a computer since the 1980s. (This was true even before UTF-8 was invented to make extended characters work across platforms; instead of ⌘⇧-hyphen, we'd just type "--" to approximate it.)

The reason LLMs tend to use a lot of em dashes is that the human-authored texts they were trained on used a lot of em dashes.

> Plenty of people have known how to use em dashes

Plenty? I don't think it's that many. And knowing how to use them, doesn't mean they would actually use them. In my experience, em dashes are mainly found in academic literature. Chances that an em dash in a new text comes from an LLM are pretty high.

Your use of it is dubious, I think. Commas would serve equally well --or better-- since it's a simple conjunction, not an interjection.

Markdown is ubiquitous in the kinds of places Hacker News visitors also tend to visit, like GitHub, various ticketing and project management systems like Jira, note takers like Obsidian and Notion (or an approximation of Markdown).

I've used `--` for years in place of an em-dash, which markdown renders as an actual em-dash.

This is untrue and a naive understanding of modern model training.

Opus 5 does not speak like a normal, average, or common English user. For example, it says “stated plainly” or “worth stating plainly” (two very uncommon English phrases) every two or three responses.

The text also includes en-dashes, I struggle to believe that someone actually manually typed those.

I have started adding a footnote superscript to my first use of an emdash in any document. The footnote is just:

"1. All emdashes on this page were written by me."

In this case, the emdashes are just tip of the iceberg. The writing is so Claude that it’s painful to read (and in fact I stopped reading to save my mental health).

Can't wait for Anthropic's downtime tomorrow

seems like they accidentally dropped their servers while they were climbing up the AGI mount

Azure was arguably as garbage four years ago as it is today, the only thing that's changed in the past few years is MS mandated vibe coding, and suddenly Github has an outage every week? A ridiculous coincidence if it's not causal.

What are the serious holes?

The main hole is that ATProto's data model is a bit awkward for a code forge.

Issues/PRs/comments are records owned by their authors, not by the repo. So an issue can span N users' PDSes. That's a neat model for social media, but a forge wants the repo to be the durable owner/context of its issues and history because that's where the comment/issue/etc. logically belongs.

The solution? tangled.org acts as a super advanced cache/aggregator for that. What can possibly go wrong?

There's a good chance this will change in the future and the repo on the knot will also contain the social aspects of repos (issues, PRs, etc.)

> As time goes on we are re-assessing the idea of users owning what is "collaborative data" (issues, PRs, etc.) on their PDSes - soon may come the day that an issue also lives on the knot as a source of truth, with an accompanying pointer record on user PDS to attest that it's theirs.

from https://tangled.org/tangled.org/core/tree/master/knot2

Couldn’t agree more. Then express yourself freely. Don't let stupid grammar limit you. Otherwise it's not your blog anymore.

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but if someone wrote a blog post that said, "Bad Grammar Discourages Me from Reading Your Blog" I would have the same response: Don't write your blog to please other people.

And that means either:

1. They overprice their APIs to make their subscriptions look reasonable

2. They burn money with their subscriptions

Could be a little of each, plus a third option: subscription users don't always consume their entire quota.