I can't take the argument seriously when they ask "Pop quiz: You’re going to get hit by something coming at you at 50 miles per hour; given equal mass, would you rather that be a small object, or a large object?"
Depth of use over the lifetime of an app is a quality all its own that often not appreciated. A recurring pattern at $dayjob is that a new manager or director will join a business unit and declare an existing app as the worst terrible, no good, horrible app they've seen and they're going to fix that. A year and a half later the new app is finally delivered with 80% of the original functionality and a fresh set of bugs. The new dev team sees the surface functionality but misses a lot of the hard earned nuance the old system accrued over time. This is a pattern that existed long before LLMs.
The Amanda solution is the intuitively obvious to even the casual reader. The Einstein solution is quite succinct but takes years to understand all the nuance in the one liner. :-)
They don't cite[0] quite possibly because they independently discovered it as did others like L.P. Deutsch (who sometimes is prepended as Deutsch, Schorr, Waite). It stands out for me as something I ended up working out as an improvement for an implementation of LispKit Lisp[1] sometime around 1982. Imagine my surprise when I came across a reference to DSW describing my 'little pointer trick' :-)
Either way you're dead.