• vas@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    1か月前

    Mike: rachel and i are no longer dating

    rachel: mike that’s a horrible way of telling people we’re married

        • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          30日前

          we really don’t need to qualify everything with some… i didn’t say all married people do anything….
          there’s really nothing that all married people do.

          • lad@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            30日前

            I mean it more in the way it depends on what you qualify as dating, I would even say that not every pair of people who are not married yet but are dating can be called dating

            • ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              30日前

              so people who are dating aren’t dating?
              sounds like some “going steady” bs that i’ll have no part of.
              “oh we’re dating but we’re not dating dating”
              people are so afraid of using their vocabulary they just add new definitions to words….
              just like George Orwell warned against

              • lad@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                30日前

                Yes, like living together, sometimes even with kids, I don’t think that’s dating, but I’m so 1984 in that, yeah

      • jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11日前

        I think “dating” has many different meanings and not everyone agrees with them. You seem to use it with the meaning of “are in a romantic relationship”. Others use it like “are seeing each other to assess romantic compatibility” while others again use it as “are involved intimately but not or not yet in a committed relationship”.

        It would be cool if people just said what they meant. But I guess they find some comfort in the ambiguity.

  • vas@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1か月前

    TL&DR: Rust is officially adopted, and thus no longer experimental.

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1か月前

    I knew it would be this. There was no other way, as it would be too sudden. Still little bit clickbaity, but I let it pass, because this is not a YouTube video or blog post for clicks and advertisement money.

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1か月前

      It’s better than click baity it’s technically correct (the best kind of correct).

      The experiment has ended! Rust in the kernel isn’t experimental anymore!

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1か月前

        Concluded might have been a better term for them to use. It means effectively the same thing but implies the natural expected end rather than potentially some other reason for ending (such as Linus pitching a fit and yanking it early).

        It’s good to see it’s doing well enough to be considered a success despite some of the interpersonal drama around it.

    • Damage@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1か月前

      lwn is a paid subscription site, they don’t need clickbait… it’s simply a joke

      • vas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1か月前

        It’s actually a mistake done in a hurry, according to a comment by the author of the post below.

  • gedhrel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1か月前

    Downvoted for clickbait headline editing, which was actually:

    The (successful) end of the kernel Rust experiment

    Let’s be a little less breathless and a little more considered. please.

    • locuester@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      30日前

      OP used the original title. Author of article has since updated it. If you read the comments on the article itself you can see evidence of this.

      Let’s be a little more attentive and not jump to conclusions. ;)

    • mech@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1か月前

      It wasn’t intentional, the author pushed the headline out during a meeting.