I think it helps going to the source material on this. Most of the administration’s moves have been pretty aligned with Project 2025, and it’s written in an accessible enough way:

Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated. When power is exercised, it should empower students and families, not government. In our pluralistic society, families and students should be free to choose from a diverse set of school options and learning environments that best fit their needs. Our postsecondary institutions should also reflect such diversity, with room for not only “traditional” liberal arts colleges and research universities but also faith-based institutions, career schools, military academies, and lifelong learning programs.

I don’t think it’s in the administration’s interest to make this seem like a prepared plan and part of an ultimately elitist philosophy, but if they actually explained it they would probably say that education should be subject to competition like other markets should be, with limited federal funding to states for excess expenditure, with the intention that education improves according to local (Christian) culture and parental involvement. The Department of Education currently tries to maintain federal standards for (more equitable) schooling, which is too general and prescriptive in this approach.

Probably not an ELI5 answer exactly, and I’m definitely not intending it as a supporting argument for this policy (it’s very elitist and inequitable), but just wanted to share that at least there is written material that outlines some of this.

Is IsSlackDown down? This link isn’t working for me for some reason lol

The water cooling system that only needs to be used once

that’s awesome, did not know about that handy operator!

The other command could just be printf '' >> file to not overwrite it. Or even simpler >>file and then interrupt

I generally agree and like this strategy, but to add to the other comment about catching reimplemented code, there’s just some code quality reviewing that cannot be done by automating tooling right now.

Some scenarios come to mind:

• code is written in a brittle fashion, especially with external data, where it’s difficult to unit test every type of input; generally you might catch improper assumptions about the data in the code
• code reimplements a more battle tested functionality, or uses a library no longer maintained or is possibly unreliable
• code that the test coverage unintentionally misses due to code being located outside of the test path
• poor abstractions, shallow interfaces

It’s hard to catch these without understanding context, so I agree a code review meets are helpful and establishing domain owners. But I think you still need PR reviews to document these potential problems

When your function literally returns the void

I don’t want to think of what the FaceTime integration would be like…