<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>e-dant</author><text>Without stepping on anyone’s toes, I think we can agree that “safety” could be broken down a bit. Memory safety, thread safety, fine… but there’s a whole forest past those trees.&lt;p&gt;Is it a safety feature to type-check regular expressions using dependent types? Is Python a security vulnerability because the performance can be unpredictable?&lt;p&gt;I don’t know.&lt;p&gt;Rust, for that matter, doesn’t protect you from running out of memory from leaking data on the heap — or from running out of stack space because your infinitely recursive function doesn’t halt. Maybe that’s not part of memory safety — but that’s my point.&lt;p&gt;There’s a whole safety forest out there. Whenever I read an article about safety in software, it seems like a comfy blanket statement. “This is a nice definition which I will live in.”&lt;p&gt;I just don’t see how it’s so flat.</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Elixir is still safe</title><url>https://paraxial.io/blog/still-safe</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>aeurielesn</author><text>What would normally be the process to debunk a published paper? Simply publishing another paper debunking it in the same journal?</text><parent_chain></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Elixir is still safe</title><url>https://paraxial.io/blog/still-safe</url></story>