While I agree that it's not important whether or not someone uses AI to improve a blog post or create code examples, this blog post seems like the output of the prompt "Write an interesting blog post about a goroutine leak". I don't have the expertise to verify if what is written is actually correct or makes sense, but based on the other comments there seems to be some confusion if what is written is actually content or also AI generated output.

I do have expertise in Go. The bug was real, and the fix makes sense (though I couldn't verify it, of course).

I just hope HN gets over the "but it might be AI!!" crap sooner rather than later and focuses on the actual content because these types of posts are never going away.

Personally, I just don't like the way this is written. As I said though, I am not an expert and so I may be outside the target group. I think that the original "this is AI" comment is an automatic response which alternatively carries the meaning "this is low-effort" and in that sense I still think that it is valid criticism.

Fair enough - I appreciate your thoughts. I'll keep the "this is low-effort" == "this is AI" equivalence in mind moving forward.

Even the part where they deploy new code to production without restarting processes?

I've done a similar fix, even a bit more interesting, however I wouldn't consider it worthy of writing a blog post, not to mention submitting it to HN.

The bug is somewhat interesting.

The entire "Gradual recovery" part of the post makes absolutely no sense, and is presumably an LLM fabrication. That's just... not how anything works. And deploying three different weird little mitigations flies in the face of the earlier "We couldn't just restart production. Too many active users."