This sounds like hell, and just proves again that wrong metrics are way worse than no metrics at all. You wrote "I had a manager" so I assume you took corrective action :)
Or perhaps, the US has a vested interest in a divided and unstable Korea to have an excuse to maintain lots of military bases in the region, because China. And Russia.
The Pyongyang wind rose indicates that a lot of the fallout will be carried N, NW, and W -- i.e. to the Chinese territory. I doubt they would welcome nuking so close to their borders.
That's something I hadn't considered, but it strikes me as the most reasonable approach, and (I might be entirely off on this one!) one befitting a culture that really understands the concept of honor/'saving face'.
Why? The author didn't crap nor fawn all over the language. He highlighted what he thought were important quirks of the Haskell ecosystem/community/whatever, in a measured manner, while noting that if you invest time and effort you can indeed produce relevant output.
Should one dive in given those quirks? The decision is up to the reader.
But the within-audible-range-"beat" at the recorded "listening position" (where the microphones are located) would be recorded anyway, no?[1] So how does hi-res audio help in this case?
[1] AFAIK most music is not recorded like that, instruments are recorded separately and then overlaid; but then adding realistic-sounding "beats" based on whatever positioning the sound engineer envisions should be possible in software?
My ears perked at this. Great advice!