> The essay is conflating 2 different concepts of "null."
I'd take it a step further, and posit that The Fine Article's rage comes from its author not grokking the distinction, or even recognizing there is one.
Of course null is going to seem frustratingly and dangerously wrong if that's your concept of it.
I'd take it a step further, and posit that The Fine Article's rage comes from its author not grokking the distinction, or even recognizing there is one.
Of course null is going to seem frustratingly and dangerously wrong if that's your concept of it.