This kind of thinking very much reminds me of those parents who view the children they chose to have as nefarious evil leeches.

Well first thing they do even before birth is starting sucking your energy out so there is that. Now that they are gently reaching teenager years, I call them roomies. They eat everything that is available in the fridge, don't want to help with cleaning, interact less and less with me, invite dubious people and listen to loud music in their room.

I'm reminded of that scene in House M.D. where he tells a patient she has a parasite, but she might learn to embrace it and dress it up in cute outfits.

pretty sure the point is that it's supposed to be in one line

It's supposed to be a single expression. You can write multiple lines by encasing the expression with parentheses.

Thanks, not sure if if it's doable without walrus operator, which I've not had the occasion for previously.

Possible w/out walrus

(but —due to walrus' rather expansive notions of scope— the sol'ns using it are shorter)

Seems very fun but the instructions are really unclear.

There's no indication of the class having to be defined in the scope (though it makes sense). The password isn't really clear on being in the filesystem (at first I assumed it's in the actual github repository for the game) and "no __builtins__" sounds more like you can't use the literal string "__builtins__".

I feel like it would've been so much more fun if you could see how the rules are checked instead of having to figure it out.

I got stuck on rule 3 — what on earth is a "comprehension?"

A list comprehension: E.g. [x for y in z]

Hint: it says "committed my password", as in a "git commit" :)

Quickly glossing over index diachronica, there's no common sound change of p<->d, but p<-b->m with the medial b has instances. (sorry for the syntax, no idea how to express this)

Worth noting they evolved from papa and titi.

I always get excited when there's a linguistics post on hackernews only to get disappointed by yet another analysis of the vowels of English dialects.

It is very hard to predict how fast a language will evolve even for linguists.

I'd like to recommend a video https://youtu.be/evJ_E7k1pvY

Languages tend to lose grammatical features (english gender) but also gain them (english habitual tense). A common way you can see languages get complex is due to sound changes making grammar irregular (english past participles).

Languages that lose cases will replace them with adpositions which can then again develop into cases. I unfortunately can't think of any PIE languages but Hungarian has 18 cases while proto-uralic only had 6.

PIE languages are currently in the process of losing cases and we can statistically expect some of them to start gaining cases again sometime in the next few millennias.

What is your proposed theory? It is understandable to be sceptical considering the scandal that was proto-altaic, however there is evidence in form of successful reconstructions of PIE languages.

This brings up the topic of standard of evidence that's considered acceptable in various fields. Successful reconstruction of PIE languages is similar to mathematical derivations in theoretical physics. In physics, successful derivation of mathematical results would not be considered "evidence". Evidence is mostly limited to observed phenomenon. Linguistics as a field seems to accept reconstructions as evidence. Which is cool. But it is interesting to consider the implications of using the standard of evidence of physics as applied to Linguistics, because it would certainly weaken (not eliminate) the case for PIE. It may create space for inquiry into non-PIE-assumed theoretical work.