It's called fraud. Some people here call it "scaling" but it's just good old fraud at scale.

err ... they are doing both.

It's normal. After the initial hype 3/4 years ago, developers are taking a harder look at that language and with experience its flaws have become more obvious.

Go type system definitely has problems that aren't addressed by its designers, IMHO limiting its adoption.

> A lot of people seem to have to voice their dislike for it instead of just not using the language.

One can use a language daily while still remaining critical of it. People who don't use Go don't care about Go. Only people using Go will complain about its shortcomings.

A lot of Go issues have actually been addressed in previous languages such as Ada. Ada tasks for instance are close to go-routines and they use the same "select" system to deal with concurrent messages. However, Ada tasks unlike go-routines are "objects" that can be referenced as variable, they also can scheduled by the developer.

There is not a single language out there free of criticism, Go isn't different. So it shouldn't really be striking at all.

You'd have to define what you mean by system language at first place before making such a claim.

It doesn't do everything C does, it doesn't allow manual memory management at first place.

So you can't pretend that a garbage collected language does everything a language with manual memory management does.

Manual memory management is a feature, Go does not have such a feature. Deterministic behavior in a program is fundamental when writing hardware drivers or real time programming, Go can't do that.

No, go has a garbage collector. It is not a replacement for C. Languages like C++, Rust or Ada are.

No, it has nothing to do with the developer console. It has everything to do with the fact that async exceptions do not bubble up in the main execution thread. Promises work the exact same way since they existed as libraries long before they were included in the language. It's about consistency, nothing more, nothing less.

No, this behavior is consistent with how asynchronous programming works in JS.

    myDiv.addEventListener("click",function(event){
       throw "error";
    });

> This also makes writing tests more difficult because tests often use exceptions to indicate failure.

Then use async functions, problem solved.

There is no "safe haven" on the long run, it has been a cycle of pump and dump schemes, no more, no less. and it will continue, Right now the exchanges are dumping their crypto and buying fiat.

An investment vehicle as volatile and unregulated as Bitcoin cannot be a safe haven. Bitcoin has lost more than 60% of its value in 4 weeks. It's rife with scams, fraud and exchanges that just steal people's money pretending they were "hacked".

14/ avoid sticky headers,like this page has, that take 1/8 of the screen real estate on a laptop and even worse on mobile.

15/ A reader should be able to increase/decrease the size of the text without destroying your layout.

16/ Stick to simple "websafe" fonts for the body of your articles. Some fancy fonts that look good on your MAC look really bad on Windows.

17/ the most horrible thing designers do: light text on white background. Please stop. Just because it looks good on your calibrated $2000 screen doesn't mean it will on a $250 laptop with limited contrast settings.

Facebook has hundreds of engineers and enough data to do match patterns against. Facebook can largely identify who's who.

> Facebook's entire business relies on user and advertise trust. Why would they sacrifice that for some short term growth that would inevitably kill the business by eroding trust?

Yes, the infamous "they trust me, dumb fucks"?

Except that Facebook knows who is real and who fake. Just like my mail provider knows who sends spam and who doesn't.

Facebook can display ads to fake users and still make the campaigner pay for the impression, or make a group pay for reaching more users, fakes included.

Facebook can easily filter requests from fake profiles, so no, fake users do not necessary worsen the experience for real ones.

What global tech company can really afford not to be in Europe? Google? Facebook? Twitter?

As a googler, you don't even know that your own company provides analytic tools for websites, as well as personalized integrated search for websites? ads on third party websites? webmaster tools? script cdn? font hosting? AMP cache ? ...

getting out of "google.com" doesn't mean that the user stops being tracked by google.

- it's completely centralized, a single actor emits tethers.

- it's completely opaque as it relies on the trust that the actor that emits tethers actually has the money to back the claim that 1 tether == $1, yet you cannot redeem a tether for a dollar directly. Bitfinex TOS even say that they don't have to give you dollars for your tethers, I'm not making this up.

Tether is shrouded in secrecy yet crypto traders happily trade them, despite the fishy history of bitfinex a company no respectable bank wants to make business with. How can anyone think this is going to end well?