This entirely misses the point. Re-implementing code based on API surface and compatibility is established fair use if done properly (Compaq v. IBM, Google v. Oracle). There's nothing wrong with doing that if you don't like a license. What's in question is doing this with AI that may or may not have been trained on the source. In the instance in the article where the result is very different, it's probably in the clear regardless. I'm sympathetic to the author as I generally don't like GPL either outside specific cases where it works well like the Linux kernel.

The better the code is, the less detailed a mental map is required. It's a bad sign if you need too much deep knowledge of multiple subsystems and their implementation details to fix one bug without breaking everything. Conversely, if drive-by contributors can quickly figure out a bug they're facing and write a fix by only examining the place it happens with minimal global context, you've succeeded at keeping your code loosely-coupled with clear naming and minimal surprises.

The medium feels wholly immaterial in this case. The words reach your brain, and then it's up to you to think about them, imagine the scene, process ideas. Audiobooks let the narrator add inflection, which maybe takes a slight load off you, but I don't see the big deal. I've read lots of fiction, and listened to a lot on road trips, and I don't feel like my comprehension suffered in either case compared to the other. The important thing is you can have the same level of conversation about the material - I don't believe all this woo about reading being the only pure and intellectual way to process information.

none.