Sorry, but this is my first translation.
It's my fault.
Thanks for the directions.

There is only one description. It can have language-specific blocks, but there is one description for all language versions of a kata.

Every time a translation is approved, the description of that translation becomes the description of the kata.

OK, if you don't want this approved, why is it still published?

Yesterday, someone suggested changing the "unreadable" part of the description.
I did not change the description of the task, so it came to my fork from the root.
But I didn't know if the author was going to fix it.
So I prepared my own fix to JS translation (in the second fork), but when I tried to save and republish the changes, the system gave errors.
So I created a new fork and published it.
At the moment, the JS version looks good.
Honestly, I do not quite understand whether this is the result of changes in the second fork (it seems that despite the message about the error, it was saved), or these changes were made in the "global" description (judging by the task disscuss, such changes really made yesterday for the Python, which was the base for my fork).

So, probably, this fork can be rejected.

But, should this be rejected, or should it be approved?

If it should not be approved, why is it published? That's what I don't understand.

I was just trying to correct mistakes in the description (break the examples into separate paragraphs).
But this has already been done at the root.

This doesn't change anything, does it?

You don't suck, I just have an unfair advantage (7 years of formal Computer Science education, and 15 years of programming practice).

Everyone starts knowing nothing. You're doing the best thing to learn-fast: practice, plus feedback from people who've been there before you ^_^

fuuuck how do you know that stuff?! jesus christ i suck... thx, i have a beginner code but well, i cant do more funcy code.

Exactly. You don't get to see it, but a byte is 8 bits long, so even though 7 might look like 111, the code "sees" 0000 0111

In the background all numbers having zero padding. You don't get to see it, but a byte is 8 bits long, so even though 7 might look like 111, the code "sees" 0000 0111.

"Indexes" actually have nothing to do with binary comparisons, they were just a convenient way of pointing to specific elements of a binary number.

Because you need to add padding of zeros to shorter number's LEFT. With regular numbers, 50 + 2 == 50 + 02, not 50 + 20, right?

why 7 binary is 0111 and not 111???

Why 7 and 10 is false if
7 => 111
10 => 1010

index 0 and 2 share the "1" so the premise of "returns true if 2 integers share at least two '1' bits" is true????
thx