Be careful! Following a link in the blog post to simonberens.me redirected me to a page instructing me to install malware under the guise of security verification.
If you wished, you rather had a large bezel than the notch, go to System Settings > Displays > Alt+Click on a resolution > Show all resolutions, and select the one that is a little less high than your current one. Then the pixels left and right of your notch go dark.
Because you will attract people who will want to take advantage of the trust these 3.8k stars signal to some people, for example, by means of supply chain attacks.
This page looks like an accessibility nightmare. The entire warning text is an image. There is no transcription present for screen reader users. I did not expect this from a government website.
I find it sad that Astro advertises itself this way, because I think that it is perfectly capable of building web projects of any complexity, simply by means of the component libraries you can plug in.
What makes it so great is not that it serves a particular niche (like "content-driven websites") but that it provides a developer experience that makes it incredibly easy to scale from a static website to something very complex and interaction-heavy without compromising UX.
Per default, Astro generates static pages. So it makes sense to compare it to an approach that doesn't.
Using a framework has upsides over writing static pages manually. Most notably, you can decompose your website into reusable components which makes your implementation more DRY. Also, you can fluently upgrade to a very interaction-heavy website without ever changing tech or architecture. But that's just what I value. I whole-heartedly recommend trying it out.
I recently found out that the author is John MacFarlane, a philosophy professor I have read papers from in totally unrelated contexts. I was more than surprised to see that he is the original author of pandoc. It boggles my mind how someone with an academic career in a somewhat unrelated field can have a GitHub profile like him. It's really impressive.
On topic, though, preceding sublists with empty lines is a complete non-starter for me. However, since I don't hard-wrap lines (goal 7), but use soft-wrap only, I am not in the target audience anyways.
Personally, I prefer "What do you think about extracting this into a separate function?"
Unlike in any of your examples, the subtext is: "I anticipate you had reasons for doing it the way you did and I am open to listening to them." It engages the author on the same footing, leaves the door open for discussion but still communicates your intent in a straightforward manner.