Although I agree the original line is a bit long, and the first refactoring is a clearly more readable, but after that it starts to feel like bike-shedding. FW

Although I agree the original line is a bit long, and the first refactoring is a clearly more readable, but after that it starts to feel like bike-shedding. FWIW I don't believe in refactoring things into tiny methods that are just used once—it's a lot of boilerplate which makes zero sense if you are not going to reuse it, but it's not the hill I'm going to die on. Overall a lot of this boils down to minor style issues. I care very little if you give me 5 short lines with named intermediate steps versus a dense one-liner, however I do care very much if your code leverages pure functions, minimizes cyclomatic complexity, encapsulates messy bits, and has some form of test coverage. The former might take me a minute or two longer to grok (depending on my personal context), but the latter compounded over a wide surface area can lead to a completely unmaintainable system and a pathological fear of touching anything.