Danger noodles have a right to be loved too!

Given the state of the world I wouldnt be surprised that given enough applications they can find an ai recruiter every week.

Simply put, the crime from drugs arises only from society criminalizing the supply. People want to have a good time and where there is a demand a supply follows. But the demand doesn’t go away because of the criminalization, just as you said. The substitute for illegal drugs (cocaine, heroin, …) are legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, …). But as many users will tell you illegal drugs provide a whole different level of high. The substitute therefore is imperfect and we get to the situation we are at today.

Thinking about guns: Which demand do they satisfy? Security? Every nation on earth operates a police force that is trained in and tasked with upholing law and order (to which extend they do is a different debate). Therefore the average citizen does not need a weapon for self-defense. Skillfull competition? There are many other fields people can compete in. If it has to be loud and make a bang there is i.e. rocket assisted model aviation just to name one. Guns can therefore be reasonably substituted by other means.

The latter

Don’t need an LLM for that. I found human-made test cases successfully testing for wrong assumptions.

I hope there was a good setup for that deus ex machina Margrit ex Prawn.

Nurse: “Sir, would you like to try this new and experimental treatment, or do you prefer proven methods?” Stroke victim: “Hhhrrrngn!” Nurse: “I’m sorry, what was that?” Stroke victim: "Hhhhhhhrhghn!!! Hrhh … " *dies*

Great idea, Sherlock!

Do you volunteer to have a stroke induced so researchers then can test their treatment?

I interpreted it as “Holiday that lasts forever because the company can’t work anymore” but I guess it is meant to mean “Holiday that lasts forever cause you got fired”?

“So, Daywim. Why did you let this obviously aweful PR pass your desk causing so much trouble for our company? I’m afraid we have to let you go because of this questionable performance.” - Corporate

If a feature request requires changes of such a magnitude it is important to break them down into smaller chunks that can be reviewed either independently or sequentially.

I have never rejected a PR before because no matter how bad a PR is, it always is technically necessary for the feature.

Define bad? If the PR contains lots of unnecessary changes such as formatting or renaming simply tell the person to roll them back and come again unless they have very good reason to do so.

If the code quality is bad, well, that’s why you are doing the review. If all that matters was “Does it do what it is supposed to do most of the time?” some simple unit tests would be enough. Reviewing code means making sure it does what is supposed to do and does so in an acceptable manner. Criteria can be amongst others speed, security, ease of use or maintainability.

• Insecure handling of inputs? Add sanitisation and resubmit.
• Overusage of resource intensive features such as database queries? Group and optimize queries and resubmit.
• The codes formatting is not according to the internal style guide? Configure your damn linter and resubmit.
• …

If you don’t want to close PRs outright you can request new commits that fix the issues you identified, reevaluate the PR and decide again.

Which would have saved a bunch of money from upkeep and accidents?

That’s highly debatable. Putting something in the ground instead of the air just adds a different set of factors eating away at the cables. Accidents happen underground as well as above. Excavators or farming equipment regularly cut cables buried in fields or at construction sites. The deeper you bury cables to avoid that the higher the cost gets. Also maintaining a network of buried cables has its own problems: Want to know where an overland power line was cut? Just look where the cable dropped. Want to know where a buried line broke? Start digging up the whole strand between the two transfer points.

Overall: Overland lines are cheaper and easier to maintain.

And people were already annoyed when I had ~90 changes due to refactoring and fixing imports …

Throw some angel investment cash at this guy already!

Project Hail Mary but not for the good of all …

Don’t get fooled, if they want those fuckers can be real fast.

Even Google’s attempt at glasses were more overt that these.

That’s because the tech wasn’t there yet. Otherwise, it would have been the same.

Because if you define specific and measurable goals within your term people might judge you for failing to meet them.

From a strategic perspective it’s a lot simpler to promise things far away because unless you are in power for the whole duration you can blame “the other side” for not being able to meet the goal when the deadline finally arrives.

For the Benefit of Mankind.