You get used to it. I don't even see the code. All I see is blonde, brunette, redhead...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-GTcHZkfCs

That's the same way I count cards. https://youtu.be/DeazgPwP3D0?t=41

In all seriousness, I do have a gripe with folks not allowing for artistic license in representing a specialized, trained thought process as a 2D visual artifact.

If the actual process couldn't be understood by & isn't relevant to 90% of the viewers, why is accuracy the goal? Instead of summarization and communication?

I look at representations of underlying systems all day, that aren't accurate to the underlying mechanics. But they're useful!

The representation is semi-based on reality as some people with extremely good visual imaginations do use them as scratch space for equations in a way that looks kind of like the "numbers in the air" metaphor, except that the numbers are in their imaginations, not hallucinated in front of them.

It is not very common among scientists, but I am willing to bet that a lot of people who end up in the visual arts (i.e. who put these scenes in movies) experienced math in a way that matches the visual metaphor when they were in school.

This visual imaginations comment reminded me of Dr. Temple Grandin, who who written books about her own visual imagination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_in_Pictures

I think my own mind is visual. I can prototype physical inventions in my head. Ex: Once, given a need for a tool that I didn't have, I considered the parts I had on hand, and recreated the tool using spare parts. The time from realizing the need for the tool, to having a working replacement was a few minutes.

When I code, before I start planing on paper, I can see the various functions that I need to write or algorithms that I'll have to use.