Really helped us float the moving company and also some DIY renovations on our house that we didn't have all the cash on hand to pay for outright. And we didn't pay a thin dime for the privilege.

In that setting, field experts working at the bleeding edge are so advanced that non-experts literally can't understand what they're saying at all. So there's a whole class of specialists, "synthesists", that specialize in gaining approximate understanding of the experts' work for the purpose of communicating it to outsiders—perhaps wrongly, according to the expert at least, but hopefully more productively vs the unmediated version.

"Too much of a good thing" does exist. Someone might feel that it takes time for their organization to "metabolize" the rapid additions made by coding agents. That seems quite reasonable to me. Your comment seems to argue a false dichotomy.

Eventually, almost every attribute we can practically and objectively measure is at best a proxy measure for the thing we actually want to know, which is, in this case, "Most likely to win races." The thing we actually want to measure is often hard, impossible, or impractical to objectively measure, which is why we resort to proxies in the first place. By "proxy measure" we mean, not a perfect 1:1 to the thing we want to measure, but containing some amount of signal about it.

So yes, sometimes there's a peak in the utility of speed. But perhaps that trade-off can be modeled by another attribute called "Proneness to fly off the track" which increases as speed does, and is weighted such that the peak and then taper-off of benefit in speed is captured between the combination of the two of them.

But then, any vehicle that has the same speed but lower "Proneness to fly off the track" would be objectively preferable to any equally-fast vehicle with greater "Proneness to fly off the track." And so it continues.

Between custom keybinds, hot strings, and pop-up menus I have literally hundreds of tiny AHK scripts running 24/7. I'm pretty sure there's stuff I've literally forgotten is an AHK vs an actual part of Windows. It's all just ingrained in my muscle memory at this point.

It's easy (aka close to thoughtless) to just collapse everything you believe into either extreme of "Matters not at all" or "Matters infinitely much."

It's hard (aka requires lots of thought, especially to maintain) to say, "This view of mine is foundational and I can't let go of it; but this other one is one of a range of acceptable views that I could be persuaded between; and this third one is totally arbitrary, and I hold to it purely because of subjective preference."

Especially over time, there's pressure to reduce everything toward the extremes. But the effortful and right thing to do is to maintain the gradient.

Incredible ideas. Really, really lousy ending.

Zig isn't finished yet (they still have not released a v1.0). They're still iterating on the language itself and want the flexibility to make backwards-incompatible changes while they do so.

So in a sense, they have not yet asked anybody in mainstream industry to "bite." After v1.0, when there's an understanding of stability and ongoing language support, industry adoption or lack thereof might become a relevant metric for measuring the project's health. But right now that's not relevant at all.

Philosophy is the exercise of testing ideas for oneself in the laboratory of one's own mind.

When I test the idea that math is discovered in my own mind, from my own perspective, with my own experience and education brought to bear, I find it unconvincing.

When you test the same idea in the laboratory of your mind, with your experience and your education applied, and get a different result, that is interesting. Your result is relevant information to me. If nothing else, it's a good prompt/trigger for me to revisit my earlier conclusion and see if it still holds.

But your disagreement—or indeed, the disagreement of a majority of trained mathematicians—does not constitute an automatic reason for me to conclusively determine that you/they are right and I am wrong.

I still have my own examination of the concept, with my own supporting and detracting arguments. And the result of my examination continues to be that math being invented is the significantly more persuasive view.

I use Janet[0] for this.

[0] https://janet-lang.org