I think you mean "(Year % 100).version". Or is it "(Year - 2000).version"? Pardon me for being overly pedantic, but ever since Y2K it really bugs me when someone refers to a 2-digit number as "the year".
I visited this page in Firefox and was presented with a message that essentialy said (paraphrasing): "this site best viewed with browser X". Now, I'm not a professional web developer, and maybe there are legitimate reasons why this app is depending on new cutting edge browser features that aren't yet supported by Firefox, but it seems to me that this just shouldn't be a thing anymore.
Because there's already another 6 on the same main diagonal. This is an "X Sudoku" puzzle, which means that each main diagonal must have all 9 different numbers.
I frankly don't buy into this trope that a lack of monetary cost should shield something from criticism. Anything created by humans for other humans, especially tools meant for getting work done, should certainly be open to evaluation/judgement/critcism, regardless of whether the creator chooses to charge for it.
And it's not like Golang is some freshman student's hobby project; it was created by one of the world's largest tech companies, by people with a strong pedigree in programming language design.
I can't speak about Dart, but Carbon had just barely started development when it was first announced 4 years ago, and is currently presented as an experimental language that is not yet ready for use [0].
I can sympathize; I shudder to think of how many total hours of my life I've spent tweaking fonts in my text editors.
That said, these days I almost exclusively use Input Mono [0], specifically the "Narrow" variety. With an occasional sprinkling of either Iosevka Fixed or PragmataPro Mono.
Doesn't work for me either. I'm running Sequoia on an Intel Mac. When the saver runs, it says "No art sources configured. Open Screen Saver Options to add pack URLs or a local folder." I've added all 5 of the recommended pack URLs listed on the GitHub page, and even tried clicking the Refetch Packs button, but it won't show anything except that message.
Opinionated design was great back when Apple's Human Interface Guidelines were based on concrete user testing and accessibility principles. The farther we get from the Steve Jobs era, the more their UI design is based on whatever they think looks pretty, with usability concerns taking a back seat.
The flaw in trying to detect AI by its use of particular idioms is that it would have learned these idioms from its training corpus, which consists of writings from actual human beings.
In other words, some people actually write like this.
I've often thought, "If AI is so great, how come all these tech companies are shoving AI features down our throats for free, instead of charging real money for them?" I'm actually glad that MS is doing this, and I hope it starts a trend of more companies gating their AI features behind paywalls, and a noticable reduction in the number of popups I encounter badgering me to use AI features that I never asked for.
So, I gather that you treated your solutions as throw-away code, rather than keeping them? Kind of surprising, considering that some problems build off of each other, or otherwise benefit from sharing code; you never know when the code for one solution could be useful later. For example, a prime number generator/tester is necessary for many of the problems.
(I have all my solution code, in source control no less, so if I ever lost my account, I could just run them all and re-enter the solutions.)