I think that there are certain attitudes that mainly occur to people outside the domain. Like how people endlessly shit on open-source projects, but few of those people are ever actually at the wheel of one.

It's very hard to get a good look at which arguments are good or not without having the experience to evaluate them.

Here's my view on Rust vs C or C++. Rust is a stricter language which makes it easier to code with low run-time errors, which is great for writing large scale projects. Now the problem with this is that you can write C++ to also be strict but it's a lot more verbose than the standard approach, so most developers don't. This causes disagreement among Rustaceans and C/C++'ers. The C++'ers are correct that you can replicate anything in Rust in C++. A correct program is a correct program regardless of the language it's written in. Rustaceans also oversell when it comes to program correctness, tons of Rust programs have errors; Rust can help minimize errors but it's not a silver bullet. Rewriting-in-Rust for an already good program is a fools errand; the outcome will probably be a worse program. However Rustaceans are correct in pointing out that the C++ written programs tend to have more errors, it's just not the rule they pretend it is.

In summary, Rust is a great language but Rustaceans oversell it. Many of it's apparent advantages can be mitigated by good development practice. It's just that good practices are difficult and uncommon.

(Note that there are also 3-rd party tools like static analysers, which can help developers detect errors. So again Rust is better out of the box, but ultimately you can get the same outcome with some work).

Or maybe the resignation was a wake-up call that resulted in systemic changes.

I have no idea what the actual case is, but there are often multiple possible causes.

I struggle to find something more obnoxious than incorrectly employed formal logic.

There is no contradiction. The intersection of "native-sounding English" and "(English with) no grammatical errors" is not empty. So it's actually perfectly possible to meet both criteria.

It also wouldn't be a logical contradiction even if it wasn't possible, since contradictions are conflicts of arguments that rely on different propositions being true, not the valuation of the actual propositions.

Basically in-depth computer science knowledge; graph theory, automata, aspects of system programming.

I technically have a physics background coupled with a bit of self-study of pure mathematics. But those 3 categories I feel hold me back in application (in physics primarily, I don't do real software development).

This is actually something that people are intended to understand by design.

Poor hygiene, teeth grinding, and accidents (from being neurotic on meth and falling, running into things).

Whenever you read "X-year old does something", it's usually already been done or a slight modification of something already been done.

This claim comes from 2 people, I would be a little more cautious about broadly embracing there claims of systemic discrimination, without actually knowing the corpus of research on the topic.

Also there claim of endurance being an important factor is suspect. Women have better endurance in that there performance drops more slowly than men, however the drop isn't significant enough to result in any total advantage. Which is why women still lose in endurance competitions.

It's fair to say that women probably weren't significantly disadvantaged in hunting (especially smaller animals), but it's quite misleading to argue that their endurance added some additional advantage.

If the building was in fact "boarded up", then it might be hard to argue that it was someone's home. At least in bankruptcy law inhabited places do have special protections against seizure.

Pretty sure syntax is the only one that is even related to what a language is. All the rest are just ecosystem development primarily effected by popularity.

When was a sovereignty of the Third Reich in question? Hitler and the NSDAP took power under legal means and then transformed into a dictatorship. They would have been recognized when they came to power.