Reefersleep

It seems more like a satirical observation than a calculated goal to strive for. That's how I understood it when I first read it, and also when reading this article.

Popup with "Do you want to download <several lines of random characters> from tomshardware.com ?"

No thank you, and I won't be coming back.

What is your use case?

Do you have other examples of how it's nicer? I've only ever heard of Elixir being the nicer alternative.

I wonder how many actual terrorists they pick up for saying "I'm here for terrorism"

Happen to be a Dane and I fully agree with your sentiment. I happen to agree (I think) that keeping children away from social media on a large scale, to avoid social isolation for those who might opt out of choice, might be overall good for the children. But the means that will likely be required to do so are, like you say, essentially more steps towards mass surveillance. And like you say, laws that can be exploited so easily by a government in bad faith are so dangerous to allow into public law, even in times when exploitation seems unlikely, because they'll likely never be removed (hah) or even amended before it's too late. Like Chat Control (though it seems pretty clear to _me_ that that is set up for abuse to begin with). I'm so embarrassed we're spearheading that abomination.

In the readme, I only see four examples under each entry, and they are all dissimilar.

Am I supposed to read something into the choice that the examples for "light" and "dark" show icons for different entities? E.g Python is dark, Rust is light. (Kidding, but still - why not use the same base icons?)

I prefer good static heads vs poor walking and talking. Didn't notice the prior to be a problem in Andor.

Thank you for that, what a fun read :D

As I gained more experience writing Clojure, I went in the other direction; familiarity with the standard library means that any composition of those functions and data structures is easily grokked. People's strained attempt to name every little line of code? Not so much. You end up jumping around the code a lot and, in my case, suffer the "portal effect" where you forget the context of what you were trying to understand. Also, namespaces become polluted with functions that only serve as assistants to your main function. This is a lesser concern, but still, it dilutes the focus of the namespace.

A nice middle way is using let bindings for whatever you want to give clearer names. You get the name you want while reducing the reader's scope to the literal let binding.

I do agree that big functions can be unwieldy, but I think that if it's mostly core clojure fns, and you're experienced, much bigger sized fns are acceptable than name-everything advocates generally prefer.

But it's individual and an artful balance even if the only reader is yourself. There's no silver bullet.

Could it be that her work in pure, abstract mathematics, while important and foundational for some fields, remains too unrelatable for a wide audience?

Maybe the same could be argued for Einstein's work, but knowledgeable people, recognizing its importance, have found ways of explaining it in a relatable way... ?

It's not implicit in this case, it's explicit. + is the function you're calling. And there's power in having mathematical operations be functions that you can manipulate and compose like all other functions, instead of some special case of infix implicit (to me, yeah) function calling, like 1 + 2, where it's no longer similar to other functions.

What's an example of non-brute force scaling?