The story about a guy and a gal gives us an R and an E, who are having a well chat. We can't tell from the outside what they're saying to each other, but it does seem to be about technological progress.
Technological progress is something we are rather sensitive about, but we aren't here to expose private matters. The giving of a voice to things which we have been suppressing might give us a retrospect to guide us to our own preferences, in case we're not particularly amused by paranormal numbers.
Paranormal numbers put me to sleep--quite literally; but don't ask me about them because I like to think that some things may remain within the occult. An identical conversation is not a useful thing for the exploring of communication--which is something which may not remain undisected.
Disecting a bee is not something I particularly like to contemplate, for it bringing me to think about which half of my own name I get to keep. Conversations between guys and gals are likely to be the only ones that can hold our attention were we to be looking for one to use for the sake of analysis. The conversation between R and E also involves V which, as far as we've been informed, only speaks to R. Some might say that V is therefore R's personal God, but telephony won the day.
Incorrigibility is not a sin, but it can lead to gross mistakes. Fixing a mistake might mean we have to rename things. The definition of api is nice and tidy, but it is up to us to make our own rulebook. Working on the zeroeth api (or api nought) we're playing a popularity contest with our users. If calling the subroutine which sums the number of our users, forty-eight, because invoking it returns the same, we might come to understand why machine code is inadequate.
My attempts at networking, though successful, did not produce relationships that provided any value. Nonetheless the voice can do the work of the boots: what I show of myself does need to be possible to read with a spoken voice.
Now think about syntax highlighting.