And most people do not have guards and dogs walking around the perimeter, but we still blame the burglars for breaking in their houses.

Arguably when left alive your health is by definition better than the alternative.

I suspect you mean the good health for a few months before death compared with a worse health during and after treatment. Still I had to make the quip.

No — I meant worse health.

You die in both scenarios, you live slightly longer (eg, 8 months versus 6 months) and during the overlap, you are less healthy than you would have been. Losing 6 months of seeing family, enjoying trips, etc due to side-effects from treatment just to live 2 months extra, but incredibly ill the whole 8 months.

In my perspective: you experienced less total QALY by taking the treatment and had more time, in worse health. Even counting those 2 months at zero, the non-treatment option experiences more vitality, in total — because 2 sickly months at the end doesn’t offset 6 months of lost vitality immediately before.

QALY optimization doesn't necessarily optimize for quality of life like it claims on the tin, it optimizes for quantity of life. Would you like 1 year and unknown discomfort or 10 years and a colostomy bag?

Near end-of-life interventions (in the US) tend to be unnecessary and leave patients worse off, and it's done because hospitals and doctors are greedy.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/surgery-near-end-...

Everyone will die. The question is whether, say, two extra months spent in a miserable state is worth it.

Same experience here, but it only works in some fields like physics and maths. it totally fails in fields that are "made up" with no rhyme or reason.

I see an opportunity for an import hurdle masquerading as a security compliance mark on all Chinese imports.

I doubt it will be implemented as there are no western cheap gadget industries left to lobby for it, and the big players would prefer the fud of buy cheap be tracked.

The parents buy the new car and keep the older one for the teenager.

Aren't employees of US tech companies typically also shareholders, by virtue of part of their compensation being paid in company stock?

For private companies to an extent yes. In public companies that’s just a way to increase your employees compensation without harming your free cashflow. I don’t think tax wise it’s any different than them paying you more in cash and then you buying the same amount of shares.

Not really, they cannot vote so their shares are completely meaningless and can become worthless very easily.

The response was similar when the new grock came out.

Does it matter for training?

I'd assume that site selection managers understand how recommending "only useful for training" locations might impact their careers.

No, merely analyzing or discussing the law generally does not constitute the practice of law. If it did, plenty of newspaper articles, law review journals (often written by law students), non-attorney legal aid, and legal pamphlets would be prohibited.

If you want something more concrete, I googled it, and in New York, there appears to have been a case New York County Lawyers’ Association v. Dacey, in which Dacey wrote a book "How to Avoid Probate!", and the NYCA accepted a dissent in a lower court, stating in part:

    Does the writing, publication, advertising, sale and distribution of "How To Avoid Probate!" constitute the unauthorized practice of law within the meaning of subdivision B of section 750? It cannot be claimed that the publication of a legal text which purports to say what the law is amounts to legal practice. And the mere fact that the principles or rules stated in the text may be accepted by a particular reader as a solution to his problem does not affect this.

and later humorously quoting:

    "[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one's mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions" (Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 270)

https://accessiblelaw.org/Disclaimer.html

Pot, meet kettle.

What if the slop PRs come from your super?

Go to their supers and take their job.

People don’t typically have to approve and submit their super’s work IME so I’m curious what you mean. If they write you unclear slop emails then constantly bother them for clarification until they fix it.

In startups it's extremely common to have management still write code. Hell I'm CTO and I write a lot of code.

I know there can be CTOs who write a lot of code and be good, but I hope to God you're not my CTO because he is a nightmare in this regard right now. We aren't even a startup anymore we have 80 engineers and he pushed 200k lines this week

Whoa, 200k lines is a lot. Without knowing the details I wouldn't want to pass judgment, but that would be a flag to say the least. I don't know how he is reading all that code before pushing...

There's a danger in it too because (whether it should or not) CTO title carries a level of weight that might result in less scrutiny than an IC (which it should not IMHO). I hope he is encouraging objective reviews and not pushing stuff through on his title.

Ah so this was a more narrow example than I initially read it as.

In that case I guess you just keep pressing them to document/make notes. Keep asking questions. Basically take away their “saved time” by dumping the time sink they dumped on you back on them.

I get my team to review my code, AI generated or not. Goes through the same process as anything they produce. Two pairs of eyeballs on everything.

I have a good enough relationship with mine that I feel comfortable telling him his code is garbage - AI slop or Meatsack slop doesn't matter.