What I really want to get at is the distinction between leaving the actual code untouched and just moving it a bit around - to other functions, other classes, other files - and having to change the code - from deduplicating to completely rewritting it.

- the code is essentially good but all is in one file, you split it up, lines of code stay the same

- the code is essentially good but lacks some structure, for a function that does five things directly, you extract the functionality into five functions and call them from the original function, lines of code goes very slightly up

But once the code is actually bad - code duplication, bad abstractions, inefficient language use, ... - I would generally expect the lines of code to significantly drop. What scenarios are there where the code is actually bad but refactoring does not reduce the lines of code? It is certainly possible but at moment I am having a hard time comming up with a good example.

- allow drawing wires backwards from sink to source

- allow connecting inputs

Also there is a problem with the tests and the simulator that showed up in the SR latch level. Despite having the correct circuit, the tests failed until I swapped the two NOR gates. I can not reproduce it, but I would guess it has something to do with the component placement order, the update order of the simulator, and how the tests are executed. As the NOR feedback loop has no well-defined initial state, it probably settled in a placement order dependent way that made the tests fail. Maybe Q was already 1 and the test looks for a 0 to 1 transition when enabling S?

The idea is amazing, making this work consistently requires effort, and a lot of it. And as only a few applications invested this effort, it only works with a few applications and never really took off outside of Microsoft. I think this used to work with WordPad and maybe even Notepad but it no longer does, you just get an image instead of the chart object in WordPad and nothing at all in Notepad. It is a dying technology.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model

[1] https://bsi-inc.com/sds_pdf/sds_un_cure.pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylformamide

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_acetate

There is a precondition - constant non-zero Jacobian - to the inverse existing and the inverse is claimed to be of a specific kind - polynomial. The counter example satisfies the precondition and by mapping two different inputs to the same output makes any inverse impossible, including polynomial ones. But maybe that is already ELI7.

So I would certainly consider it likely, that they are trying to trick me. But the probability I would assign to this, would still be rooted in some frequency, somewhere under the hood I would try to estimate the possible situations leading to such an offer and in which fraction of them I will be tricked.

If I am doing a good job with that, then repeatedly being in this situation should result in me getting tricked with the probability I cooked up. If I am bad at figuring out the possible states and their probabilities, then I they will not match.