Bad abstraction is worse than no abstraction

If the code is going to poorly organized, I’d prefer it to just be one single gigantic standalone script than some wrong and misleading arrangement of objects or functions that adds more complexity than they solve

That depends, people can be smart but malicious, non-coorperative, or selfish.

The prisoner’s dilemma shows that there are systems where individually, the “smart” individual thing to do is globally non-optimal.

Even smartness and altruism alone isn’t enough. Medical professionals are smart and out to help others, but any ER doc/nurse will tell you they have limited trust in their patients (rightly so in the real world).

Does “everyone is smart” also include both “altruism and cooperative trust in others”?

Can that barrel hold fluids? B/c then what about the ocean or even the atmosphere? (Though it would take a while)

Could’ve held one rod end in each hand, letting middle of rope ladder hang down for standing on, like stirrups

Alternate left/right and you can step in any direction into the air

It’s the difference between knowing you’ll grow and graduate together with your classmates vs knowing you’re only going to see them for that one month before you move away.

Distributing power across a group of communities over the same topic (e.g. like seats in a congress/parliament) is a nice thought.

However, my second thought was how vulnerable that is in a fediverse. To continue the analogy, an adversary could create new states (server/communities) of arbitrary population (accounts) at will.

Whiskey

Dedicated incremental static type checkers for dynamic languages already exist. In particular, Pyright for Python is fantastic and in many ways surpasses the type systems of classic typed languages

I think your ideas are too non-practical/specialized/advanced/low-level for your stated goal of 'digital literacy". They read more like college intro/followup course material and are too esoteric to be readily absorbed, esp by generic teenagers, even if they’ve self-selected to be “lightly interested”.

In recreational climbing, skin calluses and surface abrasion aren’t usually much of a concern compared to tendon health. Skin heals light damage quite easily.

However, it’s not uncommon for a new (or experienced) climber to develop their muscles beyond what their own tendons can take. Since it takes tendons so long to strengthen, it’s common to need managing the risk of finger pulley tendon injuries in climbing.

Also, I do not know how these nuances apply in your context of your medical condition.

wanted to add something to the end of a for-loop, but had too little indentation

To address this, I prefer reducing length & depth of nested code, so the for/while is rarely ever not visible along with everything inside it. Others have success with editors that draw indentation lines.

opening up new/anonymous scopes

I occasionally use Python nested functions for this purpose

I find it’s possible to operate Python as a statically typed language if you wanted, though it takes some setup with external tooling. It wasn’t hard, but had to set up pyright, editor integration, configuration to type check strictly and along with tests, and CI.

I even find the type system to be far more powerful than how I remembered Java’s to be (though I’m not familiar with the newest Java versions).

I prefer that, though (it’s in my calendar, but I don’t have to accept). I really can’t stand Outlook’s email-based calendar workflow.

That’s only because the former already implies much of the latter, so they don’t need to repeat it

In a sense, money represents all the future goods and services it can buy, and those goods and services ultimately resolve down to someone’s time and effort. Money was conceived as a formalization of IOU’s, after all.

So it’s similar to asking whether there’s a limit to how much time and effort from (i.e. influence over) others one would want.

It refers to a male cousin that is NOT in the same paternal line, so maybe not too uncommon?

Must be proprietary, bc TOTP shouldn’t be blocked by age of the device

What do you do for a living/what are you into that isn’t super deep in some way? What field did you rabbit hole into in the past that makes you go, “never again”, now?

I think people are being lazy, in a selfish, tragedy of the commons sort of way.

When standing in line, they all watch the customer stand there doing nothing as the cashier checks out items. If only they’d bag their own things, we’d all be able to get on with our lives that much sooner. Instead, they continue standing there doing nothing, as the cashier now bags their items.

Then the next person in line moves up and also just stands there, also unwilling to do anything to help speed things along.

avoiding merge conflicts

No, not like that – you misunderstand. I’m not talking about actively avoiding conflicts. Coordinating to avoid merge conflicts is the same work as resolving a merge conflict anyway, just at a different time.

I’m talking about creating practices and environments where they’re less likely to happen in the first place, never incurring the coordination cost at all.

One example at the individual level is similar to what you mentioned, but there’s more to it. E.g. atomically renaming and moving in separate commits, so git’s engine better understands how the code has changed over time and can better resolve merges without conflict.

But there’re other levels to it, too. A higher-order example could be a hot module where conflicts frequently occur. Sure, atomic commits and all that can help “recover” from conflict more easily, but perhaps if the hot module were re-designed so that interface boundaries aligned with the domains of changes that keep conflicting, future changes would simply not conflict anymore.

IMO the latter has an actual productivity benefit for teams/orgs. Some portion of devs just aren’t going to be that git proficient, and in this case, good high level organization is saving them from losing hours to incorrect conflict resolutions that can cause lost work, unintended logical conflicts (even though not lexical conflict), etc. Plus, it implies abstraction boundaries better match the changes demanded by the domain, so the code is likely easier to understand, too.