gintery

I'm not sure I follow. What I meant is that a benchmark over a specific task is not really informative without a comparison of why it is slower in some languages compare to other.

I see. That makes more sense. That being said, you are still framing life as a competition/game which I'm not sure I see the point in. For what it's worth, I view religion mostly as a mechanism for encouraging behavior which is collectively beneficial. We are all better off if we act in ways that are trustworthy, even if that means individual sacrifice in some cases, and so the whole afterlife b.s. is just a way of suggesting a lifestyle which is pro-social. Case in point, even people who supposedly believe in paradise don't act like it.

This is sort of interesting but isn't informative without any idea as to why some languages are slower. What is the difference between the LLVM-IR/assembly produced by C and the one produced by Crystal/Nim/Julia?

Your whole post is extremely American. Why do you want to be #1 compared to anyone, let alone compared to God? You are no longer religious because your self-centric world-view is incompatible with believing anyone can be better than you, which includes God? I have trouble believing you are serious.

If you have to assign to a const variable during a small refactor, then maybe it shouldn't have been const in the first place? I'm struggling to imagine examples where this is a real problem

Is the code really that complex? Overly verbose, maybe, but its really not that hard to follow even for someone who doesn't know much about C++ templates.

Most people hate const at first (myself included) but once you get used to it, it really does reduces mental load. Not having to glance around is precisely the point, its not a big thing but it does help.

Your law is hilarious. I tend to check the comments before reading a post: if they say the idea is terrible, I know I should read it.

Now my compulsive snoozing can continue even during daytime :)

My guess would be that there's a feedback effect, where posters learn to only post comments which are likely to get upvotes. The net effect is that shared opinions converge. Ideally a comment section would be a sample of the whole distribution of opinions, while in practice only the mode of this distribution is represented. This is a direct effect of having votes on comments.

With regards to your question, what I meant was that these two aspects are in fact non-separable. The technical solution (upvotes) shapes the social behavior (the type of discussion) very strongly.

I mostly agree, but we really have no way of telling if its meaningless or not.

This site suffers from extreme group-think. Comments are essentially predictable, as anyone who disagrees with the public opinion will either refrain from posting or not get upvotes anyway. This is what you get from sorting content by vote count. I think that, ironically, the problem is technical and not so much social.

This would be really good for scientific articles. They are usually filled with (important but noisy) details that make skimming them for the important ideas difficult.

I went through elementary school in Inuktitut and don't remember anything about an elaborate vocabulary for snow. Learning stuff for Haskell made it much easier to learn similar concepts in Rust, which is a pretty pragmatic language. Sometimes learning things doesn't help but it also never hurts.

Separating HTML from CSS has no basis, they are both concerned with the visual organisation of information. I feel that the real problem is not with CSS, but with how HTML forces you to jointly specify the semantic structure of data with its layout.