[loudouncodes]

I can’t believe I’m going to be ‘that guy’ for this post, but the word ‘co-conspirators’ hurts my eyes. Can you conspire alone? No, a conspiracy naturally involves several people. The word ‘conspirator’ is enough to identify someone in a conspiracy.

Co-conspirator is re-redundant.

Thank you for tolerating my inner pedant.

[jws]

I think the slightly different meaning is that it is the set of conspirators not including the conspirator you have named previously. So if I conspire with Alice and Bob in a peer based nonhierarchical fashion to make our names famous in cryptography, Alice and Bob are my co-conspirators, though we are all conspirators.

So in this headline, we are talking about people other than Ellsberg.

[banku_brougham]

Thank you, i support this. I hadn’t noticed before but yeah, redundant.

Its mildly infuriating, like DB schemas that are named something_schema. The object is a schema so using “schema” in the name is the first step into the inferno, in my view.

[yardie]

I agree with the grammar as written. But when describing objects in a programming language isn't it better to add the type into the variable name? I've always found o_object, s_string, d_double to be quite common when working with ObjC examples. So often, that I assume it's best practice.

When dealing with a wall of text it's not always obvious that a schema is a schema.