Why when actual evolutionary biologists disagree with Peterson on most of his "takes"?

Many languages/companies have existing well understood solutions that _won't_ have errors. Maybe that is the disconnect? I can't remember the last non-interview time I had to write a non-trivial traversal.

If you use Google there is plenty of research disproving you from Canadian sources that pander to both Liberal and Conservative readership.

If you're actually interested and not just asking someone to elaborate on a complex problem over a HackerNews comment. An equally uncharitable opponent could ask you to prove that heavy policing (or at least the NYPD) has played a significant role in reducing crime.

Perhaps defunding eventually reveals that we should abolish the police. Perhaps not.

But you can only do what your tools allow you to do.

But also sometimes it makes more sense to copy and paste over trying to fit an abstraction where it shouldn't be. :)

I think the purpose of questions like the ones by OP is not to figure out "rules" (which are useful only for beginners) but to figure out where and why rules were broken. Sometimes (often) the answer is time, but that in and of itself is a useful example.

Good intermediate (I suppose Sr. in our industry) level code is notoriously difficult to find examples of and mentor toward.

TUIs can be composable as well but you are 100% correct that I overstated the case.

I haven't read about the industry in years but isn't it the case that the job of "book recommendations" is essentially the publishers job? They unironically try to sell you more than a book. An algorithm would threaten their worth.

(There are, of course, other useful functions like publishing and the irreplaceable editors, but neither require the capital strength of marketing.)