If you find compact language above your level of proficiency confusing, you can literally ask an LLM to explain it for you to trade efficiency for accessibility.
You sound unhappy and seem to be lashing out, and your username can only be read as an allusion to a mentally ill would-be assassin. Given those, you can maybe begin to understand why your opinions are not credible as a contribution even in relation to other anonymous people.
A small part of your comment is salvageable, though:
> Understanding what something is for is not understanding how it accomplishes it
I can think of at least one area I know something about where the 5 second rule fails - sometimes when working on a shader and optimizations for it, it takes more than 5 seconds for the person who wrote the code to describe what it's for at a high level.
If even the person who wrote the code can't meet that arbitrary constraint, other people looking at the code for the first time have no chance.
You sound unhappy and seem to be lashing out, and your username can only be read as an allusion to a mentally ill would-be assassin. Given those, you can maybe begin to understand why your opinions are not credible as a contribution even in relation to other anonymous people.
A small part of your comment is salvageable, though:
> Understanding what something is for is not understanding how it accomplishes it
I can think of at least one area I know something about where the 5 second rule fails - sometimes when working on a shader and optimizations for it, it takes more than 5 seconds for the person who wrote the code to describe what it's for at a high level.
If even the person who wrote the code can't meet that arbitrary constraint, other people looking at the code for the first time have no chance.