[kazinator]

If we put on a cynical hat, your page reads like "I've never heard of lock-free algorithms based on atomic operations. I therefore must have just invented it and I get to name it: how about beneficial use of race conditions?"

[shwestrick]

Whoa, uhh, I mean, that's an extremely unfair and inaccurate characterization.

[kazinator]

Sure, and one that one can avoid bringing on oneself by not abusing/twisting/redefining common terminology.

[bheadmaster]

Eh, I personally wouldn't be so hard on someone because of language. Words don't have definite meanings on their own, it's our general agreement that makes them meaningful. And the meaning of words are often overlapping, shades-of-grey kind of deal, with even more subtle differences in individual understanding of them. Language is hard.

Moreover, polite explanations may bring enlightenment, but aggressive scoldings are almost guaranteed stop people from accepting your words, even if they're true, because in order to accept their truth, they have to accept the unpleasant implications of your words.

I think learning should generally be as pleasant as possible. Putting the work in is hard enough as it is.

[kazinator]

> I think learning should generally be as pleasant as possible.

If you want pleasant learning on the Internet, don't "learn by teaching" through blogs that mislead other learners, even if only in terminology use.

People will tear that apart.

[bheadmaster]

According to the Encyclopedia of Parallel Computing (mentioned in one of the sibling sub-comments of my original comment), you and I are both wrong in what we consider a "race condition". Of course, whether or not the source is an authority on the subject when the popular usage of the word refers to a different concept is questionable, but there's at least a possibility that we're both wrong.

Regardless, that's still one more reason not to be unpleasant to people when correcting them - you might just find yourself in the wrong.