It's a fine phrase, evocative, that I agree has become cliché. But that's not the problem here. The problem here is that it's being misused.
It works when there's something that is problematic for taking up space in your head. It colors the way you think in a way you wish was not the case.
While I could strain and make that sort of make sense here (eg it uses up some capacity that would otherwise allow the author to remember other more immediately useful algorithms), it's clear from the article that the author only means "I still remember the CORDIC algorithm" and nothing more.
Not a big deal, but it momentarily annoyed me as a "clickbait and switch" headline.
I always thought rent was utility, and a piece of knowledge or an opinion that didn't pay rent was one that provided little or no practical benefit to you.
The term in its original use described an obsession with a particular group or thing and called it out as pointless. I don't think it would make sense for rent to mean effort in this original sense, nor in the broader way it's used here.
I have no idea what pseudo-intellectual discourse this is trying to be but the phrase "X lives rent free in my head" means only that "I think of X a lot because I enjoy thinking about it". Nothing more.
In addition, it literally says "rent free". There's nothing intellectual or pseudo-intellectual about reading the phrase "rent free" and concluding that the information does not pay anything to live in your head. This is basic reading comprehension.
JFC nothing pays rent to live in your head. I don't see the point of analyzing something so literally, completely sidestepping the content of the article in question.
> “Lives rent-free in my head” is a horrible cliche.
Yes it is, much like "dumpster fire" or "toxic" or "gaslighting" or any other contemporary Reddit-isms that are associated with hyper-reductionist cultural hot takes. My personal distaste for them, however, has no bearing on the fact that they have very real meaning and people enjoy using them.
> By now, it has the same effect as saying “it’s nice” but uses lots more letters.
The commonly-held meaning of this is that it describes a pervasive, intrusive thought, not a nice one. This particular turn of phrase is often used to describe how politicians devote energy to talking about other politicians that they don't like, for instance.
