That's not true. The same byte sequence is either valid UTF-8 or it isn't. One of UTF-8's distinguishing features is that you can tell with fairly high probability whether a sequence of bytes is valid UTF-8 or not. Unlike (say) ISO-8859-1, which could be ISO-8859-2. You can't (easily) distinguish without human intervention.
The fact that the site declares itself to be both UTF-8 and iso-8859-1 is just ludicrous however.
Exactly the point of the article...
I actually did one of those comments a few days ago. There wasn't a better way to do a particular piece of code, so I put the comment in "// This is ugly, but there isn't a better way to do it.". It's a note to myself and future developers not to bother trying to fix an insignificant ugly piece.
Which is absolutely fine, just so long as you explained why in the next sentence. Or preferably three. As somebody above mentioned, comments should explain the why, not the how.
Much like commit messages, but that's a rant for another day
A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.
