Whatever else it might be, it is definitely not Unix.

I think you mean: it is one of the most brain dead comments you have ever hurd about Linux.

Unfortunately, the next step is for AI to get better and better at generating verification trails that look correct but are not.

If only we had built the web on top of a language that did not have such insane handling of its numbers in the first place...

He sold his first software before it was even finished to his own unuversity.

What drives me crazy is when I hear this fact being cited as a positive thing that makes him a role model.

You are right, of course, but I personally draw a great of pleasure from imaging the CEO of Adobe screaming, "CURSE YOU MARTIN OWENS!!!"

Smugglers would disagree.

Ugh, nothing has been confirmed; some interesting modeling and theoretical conjecturing was performed. The rest is grandiosity on the part of the article.

(Also, why was the link to a comment near the bottom of the article, rather than to where it began?)

I am sympathetic with the sentiment so I am hardly going to discourage anyone from doing this, but it is not clear who could still be convinced at this point.

Just to be clear, the problem is actually not that the guy was being boring but that he was a monster.

All of these options are still better than spending full price for a pair of jeans that were lovingly crafted to start with holes in them!

Wait... I just noticed this:

[XHTML] never took off on the web, in part because in a website context so much HTML is generated by templates and libraries that it’s all too easy to introduce a syntax error somewhere along the line; and unlike HTML, where a syntax error would still render something, the tiniest syntax error in XHTML means the whole thing gets thrown out by the browser and you get the Yellow Screen of Death.

This confuses me; don't you want to make sure you are always generating a syntactically valid document, rather than hoping that the browser will make something suitable up to work around your mistake?