HN user
In nix packages (derivations) are so lightweight that your store has tens of thousands of them, many with the same name, or with no meaningful name at all. On the rare occasions that you need to look in the store for a package you’re much more likely to be looking for a particular hash than a particular name. That, and having the hash as a prefix looks nicer in tabular output.
Best way to deal with the sense of doom imo is to actually use it. You'll find how dumb it really is by itself, and how much of your own judgment/help/editing is still necessary to get anything usable. It might look like magic from these manicured press releases, but once you get your hands on it, it quickly becomes just another tool in your toolbox that, at best, helps you do the work you were doing anyway, more quickly.
more of a comment really
Why would I print my chat window
As an American, sitting down next to a European on vacation for more than a few minutes is never fun. Once they inevitably ask "Where are you from?", they follow it up with a lecture on American politics before I can even finish my sentence. It's tedious and it's nothing new.
Counter-anecdotally; I've never experienced this and in my workplace at least, the people who never stop talking politics are all American.
I asked my Japanese colleagues for what the correct way to say 'koin ikko ireru' would be, but none of them thought it sounded funny.
Haskell's type system works because of purity, and purity doesn't generally mesh well with performance-oriented applications like game engines. There are some type-driven approaches to gamedev, like https://github.com/jonascarpay/apecs, but it's fairly experimental. There has been some talk about linear types, which would allow Haskell to have controlled impurity similar to Rust, but they're still a ways off.
Have you seen the KOMA-script or memoir latex classes? They are very suited for typesetting books and have great documentation.
The author, some of the comments here and especially the author of the Gizmodo article seem to lament the fact that passwords aren't stronger. I have no idea about whether or not that is justified, but a list of the most common passwords is in no way reflective of average password strengths. A good password is probably unique in the world so by definition the only passwords on this list are those that are trivially easy to come up with. A more interesting statistic, I think, is what percentage of the world's passwords is '123456'.