I think the "Building an intuition" section of my blog post[1] makes a good case for that.

  When dealing with loops, you have 3 nested constructs interacting: a wrapping function, a loop statement and the loop's body; and you have 3 keywords to choose where the flow of the code goes.

    return returns from the wrapping function
    break leaves the loop statement
    next / continue leaves loop's body

  When dealing with blocks or anonymous functions, it's instead 3 nested "functions" that are interacting: a wrapping function, a called function and an anonymous functions (or block).

    Ruby's blocks, let you use the same 3 keywords to choose where the flow of the code goes.

    return returns from the wrapping function (ex: my_func)
    break returns from the called function (ex: each, map)
    next returns from the block

  Quite consistent. But since we are talking about functions instead of statements (loop), return values are also involved. Allowing both break and next to provide a return value fits well in that model and is quite useful. The 3 keywords are basically return, but they have different targets.

Care to share an example problem?

In Ruby, you always use the global name (with caps) that normally matches the library with possibly some nesting. (exceptions exists, but its also possible to add globals in Python)

Unless you are talking about include, but thats for mixins, which are snippets of reusable coee you can add to you class.

It doesn't feel at all as dirty as `from blah import *`.

So the trick here is that if you are at the focus point, you get all that light in a small area "for free". But if you try to catch the light on the way, you now need to catch eveywhere in a whole massive circle, which is basically impossible, so you only catch a minuscule amount of the light. And then have to deal with interferometry.

But "source available", english-wise, sounds like you can only read it.

This pushes some to avoid the term and say open source since that's much closer to their what the license does, even if they are not exactly open source.

The argument is that "fair source" would be a much clearer term for most of the "source available with extra freedoms" stuff, and I agree.

Are you saying you want adds in GitHub search's results? Google, Bing, etc. make money showing you adds. Adding barriers of entry is much less in their interest. Their budget to optimize the search engine is likely much bigger than GitHub's one.

A free feature that stays free but requires you to make a free account (no credit card needed), I can see at least one very valid reason: if the feature heavier than a simple page (which is the case here), then it's an open door for DDOS attacks. Being able to track and ban/block the users that appear to participate in such an attack is totally valid.

The alternative is having to do captchas and the like to use those features anonymously, which is a pain both for user and for the devs/UI, and does feel more like the overall enshittification you are mentionning (even if it's a valid reason)

Well right now, the only way to know is to read comments/docs. The problem is that for many older languages, the signature cannot make it clear that null is a possibility (unless you count "anywhere can be null regardless of the function", which isn't helpful).

The goal is to have a real distinction between can be null and wont be null so that things can be made explicit and the compiler can actually highlight places where the handling is missing.

It's a tool to help do exactly what you describe in a less error-prone way.

You can't expect someone not core to a project to just propose to restructure the whole documentation. Which may also mean changing the website.

And in any case, such overhaul coming from a "nobody" would very likely be rejected as being both too large or incomplete or not desirable.

Re-structuring needs to be pushed for by at least one person from the core team.

So yeah "Just submit a PR" in that context is not an answer, it's an excuse to avoid trying to understand the problem and actually improve the situation.

If the value increases, there is this same question, if you can know if I'm right or not, then you offering me a milion is just a trick isn't it? Also, you clearly wouldn't just give out one milion anyways, you dont havr the budget for that.

The only case is seems useufl to switch is when additional information was added in a guaranteed way (monty hall paradox)

Sure, the vitamin D in his blood may increase, but the anecdote of "it works" is about him getting sick less. And that could be a placebo effect and any sake pill would have had the same effect.

And the placebo effect can happen even when the person knows it's a fake pill.

I say very small because to me, n=10_000 sounds like a number that could easily and quickly grow higher since yoy are past a basic enumeration of a few choices.

Can you really collect half a table spoon of tears from tear ducts? How much tears are in there?

So barely any of the money you put in goes to the artists you actually listen to.

L1 is at 1% of the distance from earth to the sun. This means that if you are going to put something reflective there, there is basically no benefit size-wise compared to doing it directly on earth. (Diagrams usually make it look like it's 1/3 of the way, which would have a 77% increase to the covered area).

Feels like it would be easier to put something reflective like that somewhere on earth instead, allowing for a much bigger coverage per $.