I'll add my two cents here. A lot of the work that goes into a codebase doesn't necessarily appear in the final product. Sometimes code is hastily written to get the system working, and then it has to be rewritten to be faster or more stable or what have you. A rewrite can just reimplement the final code. Sometimes the company changes direction (think of the stereotypical aimless startup that pivots every Tuesday) and the code solves a problem that the company is no longer interested in. A rewrite can just ignore that code. Some of this has to do with technical debt, but it's also due to the fact that it's easier to do something when you know exactly what you're trying to do.
It's like the difference between between reproducing a proof from a math textbook and actually proving a new theorem yourself. The latter takes a lot more time and effort, even though the amount of work in both cases looks the same from the outside.
Django has the function render (it used to be render_to_response) that takes a template and converts it to HTML. So it isn't just the JS people who are using the idea of rendering in this sense. More generally, rendering doesn't necessarily mean something visual; for instance, one may talk about how a phrase in one language is rendered in another language.
(I'm also 39. You and I may see each other at the shuffleboard court soon.)
You're right about D, but Rust is drawing some people away from C and C++. Something may emerge that will do the same on the JS front-end. In fact, I'd say that the TypeScript/React combo is more susceptible to being replaced than C and C++ are. There are many large C/C++ codebases that represent many man-years of work and won't be rewritten or thrown away any time soon. JS front-ends don't have that kind of longevity. Think about how many web startups just fizzle out, and their code just goes away.
This is pretty poor writing by PG here. What is "neutral opinion"... fact? Or the people who answer "I don't know" in political polls? And saying "Actual frauds are usually pretty conspicuous" is silly. If an attempt at fraud were really obvious, it wouldn't trick many people. The big frauds are the ones that are outwardly plausible and therefore trick lots of people.
My Chrome installation updated itself recently, and when I restarted it today, it asked me whether I wanted to enable new AI features. I told it no. In retrospect, if it were really intelligent, it would have known I was going to say no.
bee_rider already touched on this in another comment, but the theorem makes sense if you consider a matrix with large diagonal values and small off-diagonal values (in magnitude). If I have a matrix with 1,000,000 on the diagonal and 1 everywhere else, I'd expect the eigenvalues to be 1,000,000 plus or minus some small error. The Gershgorin disk theorem proves this and puts an upper bound on the error.
The diagonal elements of matrices have a lot of rather "magical" properties if you think about it. Their sum is also the sum of the eigenvalues of the matrix. And if you have a matrix A that is singular, you can choose any value x that is not an eigenvalue, and then A - xI is invertible but still mostly behaves like A.
It's like the difference between between reproducing a proof from a math textbook and actually proving a new theorem yourself. The latter takes a lot more time and effort, even though the amount of work in both cases looks the same from the outside.