Alright, lemme try to explain this:

1. You stated you don’t care about FFmpeg.
2. Someone asked why and stated it was useful.
3. You brought up “bad journalism” in response, implying your lack of care for FFmpeg was due to the article not describing why it was useful.
4. To refute your accusation of bad journalism, I pointed out the first paragraph of the article, which directly makes a case for FFmpeg and which you seemed to have missed.
5. You somehow seem to think I’m defending FFmpeg in some fashion, thus missing my point. (Also, you seem to be calling FFmpeg a “format,” presumably because it has “mpeg” in the name? FFmpeg handles a litany of formats.)

The author has not done bad journalism. You just missed stuff while reading. That’s fine so long as you address it. I would ask you not insult me for pointing this out, though.

You seem to be under the impression that AI is a good tool for finding undiscovered security bugs. It’s not. It’s a crapshoot that requires a ton of extra effort to verify. Using it to find bugs wastes time and has a high risk of side-effects, given that AI has no understanding and thus cannot know if an issue is important, if fixing it has unwanted implications, or if there even is one at all. And if you’re going to try to solve that with human supervision, then you may as well just have the human do the review to begin with and leave the AI out of it.

Bad journalism has nothing to do with this. Literal first paragraph of the article:

You may never have heard of FFmpeg, but you’ve used it. This open source program’s robust multimedia framework is used to process video and audio media files and streams across numerous platforms and devices. It provides tools and libraries for format conversion, aka transcoding, playback, editing, streaming, and post-production effects for both audio and video media.

If you weren’t paying attention until someone pointed out your error, just say that. We won’t crucify you.

Better suggestion: Stop using AI to do any of this shit. Security research and vulnerability patching should not be reliant upon de facto black-box random number generators.

Probably worth mentioning that another alternative called TopAnswers.xyz exists as well—both Codidact and TopAnswers mention each other in their homepages, which I find pretty neat.

Definitely interested to see how both of these sites pan out. StackExchange has been a powerful force for good over the years, and it’s been sad to hear it starting to slide down recently, not that I should be too surprised since they got bought four years back. I’m eager to see what a properly open-source and nonprofit community can do on the good template that SE once set.

I do wish either of these sites could host in a different country than the UK though; I’ve heard more than enough by now to feel that hosting a tech project in the UK is scarcely any better than doing so in the US, privacy-wise. (Though for that matter, TA uses Amazon for hosting, which is probably the worst of both worlds.)

This is a very fair point and I agree that a solid, proven assurance of information survivability is vital to something like this. Frankly, though, if StackExchange is shitting the bed (as it seems to be if GenAI is being accepted there) then I think it’s important to get a good alternative running regardless. Still, that in turn makes it all the more important to keep the pressure up on the survivability issue so it doesn’t get ignored.

I’m saying that if you think you said “that is a stupid position to take and here is why,” you missed the mark severely, and you should be more careful with your phrasing if you don’t want people to get upset at you in future. It’s not about people “willingly” misinterpreting anything — whether you realized it or not, what you said wasn’t the level-headed response you may have intended it to be.

I saw that one. It’s what I was referring to when I said “saying you want to ‘avoid alienating people’ when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic.” Criticizing the maintainer response there was one of the good parts of the blog post.

But the outcome of that doesn’t really much change the fact that the sarcastic PR was sarcastic, and thus calling that PR spam is reasonable, whereas claiming they called the trans woman herself spam is not. To be clear, however: I’ve no issue with the sarcastic PR itself, only the framing of it in the blog post.

It is absolutely a reasonable interpretation to assume you were referring to the people making the decision you didn’t like. And even if it wasn’t, calling an idea a group of people have “incredibly fucking stupid” isn’t much different, as it carries an implication of how you see those people.

If you feel other people are getting offended too easily at what you say, I recommend spending extra time on your posts to ensure you avoid saying derogatory things you don’t intend for. Something that looks good to you can be incredibly insulting to others who read differently from you, and since conversation is a two-way street, that’s the kind of thing we all need to be aware of.

I’ve no love lost for the developers in question. But between the original two PRs and associated comments being from over three years ago, and the “trans woman [being called] 'spam” comment being said about a PR that seems pretty strongly to me to be meant as a sarcastic insult rather than a genuine contribution, I can’t help but find it a little unconvincing.

It’s not without merit by far. I feel that Kling’s blog post not addressing the drama was in poor taste and may indicate a lack of self-improvement regarding the initial fuckup, and saying you want to “avoid alienating people” when closing a PR that aims to improve inclusivity is more than a little pathetic. I also understand not wanting bigots to be able to just bury their past and pretend they were never bigoted. It’s just that the fiery response this has gotten still ends up feeling a bit disproportionate given how old the truly insulting issues were. Am I missing something?