At least functional languages tend to have block scope, so the latter snippet introduces a new variable that shadows `not_found` instead of mutating it.
No, at least in Erlang a variable is assigned once, you can then match against that variable as it can't be reassigned:
NotFound = 404,
case Status of
NotFound -> "Not Found";
_ -> "Other Status"
end.
That snippet will return "Other Status" for Status = 400. The Python equivalent of that snippet is a SyntaxError as the first case is a catch all and the rest is unreachable.
Destructuring is a feature. Making it easy to confuse value capture and value reference was an error. Add single-namespace locals and you have a calamity.
Destructuring yes but you can still argue it's poorly designed. Particularly unintuitive because matching on a nested name e.g. module.CONSTANT works for matching and doesn't destructure. It's just the use of an unnested name which does destructuring.
What Python needs is what Elixir has. A "pin" operator that forces the variable to be used as its value for matching, rather than destructuring.
It wouldn't be a problem is Python had block level variable scope. Having that destructuring be limited to the 'case' would be fine, but obliterating the variable outside of the match is very unexpected.
You misunderstand the übermensch. It's not a kind of person, not some state you can achieve. Rather, it's the future potential of humanity, Nietzsche's suggestion for a new guiding star to give purpose and meaning. You can also view it as an inversion of the christian god; god is our father, created us, lives above us, while we create the übermensch through our actions. God exists in some seperate dimension/layer and christianity tells you to look up, away from the material world, while the übermensch, as the result of your and everyone elses actions, focuses you on your actual, physical life.
The opposite of the overman [Übermensch] is the last man: I created him at the same time with that. Everything superhuman appears to man as illness and madness. You have to be a sea to absorb a dirty stream without getting dirty.
Interesting study but I don't really get the point of the search group. Looking at the essay prompts, they all seem like fluffy, opinion based stuff. How would you even use a search engine to help you in that case? Quote some guy who had an opinion? Personally I think my approach would be identical whether put in the web-search or the only-brain group.
Search Engine is a tool, similar to the one we have now, LLM. It seemed unfair to compare a purely no-tools approach (Brain-only) with a tool (LLM), thus the first motivation of including it. The second one is that we had already seen several studies exploring the Search Engine and its effects on one’s brain. This allows us to ground the research a bit and have a solid base. Finally, I think you had just responded to your own question in your own statement - indeed, to get a user exposed to other opinions. Echo chambers are present in both cases, but it is also important to understand what was the training dataset for ChatGPT and what is the current trend in Google keyword planner (see the example on homeless and giving in the Discussion of the paper). Hope it is more clear now.
