I'm not sure how that's supposed to be a reasonable point of view. Keeping the problems nicely hidden from the larger community is not going to help anyone. Of course merely talking about a problem isn't going to solve it either, but it's more likely to lead to solutions in the long term.

The form factor of AA and AAA batteries (which the author prefers) exists with all kinds of chemistries, including Lithium-ion nowadays, you can recharge them, but while you are doing that you can also put new batteries in your device and use it immediately.

This isn't a correct explanation, because I can use the same explanation to show that there are more integers than that there are even integers.

"it’s very clear that there isn’t an equal number of them because even numbers (let's call it E) are a subset of the natural numbers (let's call that N) and there exists at least one odd number (I pick 1) that is in N but not in E. So N must be at least bigger than E."

But it is literally the same? Numbers are immutable, so there is a performance optimization where you can avoid using pointers internally, but the fact that they are immutable also means there is no way to distinguish between them being the same value and them being "different instances".

If you do `let a = []; let b = a; a = [1]` would your students expect that b equals [1] or would they understand that a and b now contain different arrays? If the latter, then why would think that after `let a = 22; let b = a; a = 50;` b also equals 50?

(zsh has which as a built in command, apparently bash doesn't, which causes the different output). It's unclear to me what /usr/bin/cd actually accomplishes though, even in bash.

(final edit I hope, I found an explanation of sorts for /usr/bin/cd: https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/50060)

You can try higher precision by setting the scale.

    $ echo "scale = 100; (2/3)*3 - 2" | bc 
    -.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000\
    0000000000000000000000000000000002

Hopefully you can see that if this series continues then the expansion rate is always dropping, but it's headed towards 1, not 0. (And if expansion rate of 1 is too confusing in this context imagine if it starts out at 3 and goes to 2.5, 2.25, 2.125, ..., it still is always decreasing, but it will never be less than 2 which means the universe keeps expanding).

If you don't see sets as a sequence then neither is approaching anything.

Using your definition O would be equal in size to P, P would be equal in size to O3, but O3 would be smaller in size than O.