How about this one?

They never specified which Apple chip it would outperform. Turns out it was the G4.

I'll be able to get there with my fusion powered flying car instead by the time this is completed.

You don't consider it serious that you're essentially indentured servants of corporations and that they can easily circumvent due process and force you into settling on their terms?

O... kay...

Putting her boss in a position where he might break the law even if he doesn't mean to is screwing him over?

People like you, who demand she screw herself over for the benefit of her employer, are the reason the law is what it is.

People like you - who demand people screw themselves for the benefit of employers, or even potential employers - are the reason the law is what it is.

Yeah, there's a lot of lamenting, but face it, it's tantamount to complaining that the Beef Wellington isn't exactly medium on point where everyone around you is starving to death.

Compared to the problems you face, we're actually, I hate to say it, pretty well off.

You are aware that the replacement rate of young people is not up to what it used to be, yes? For every 5 people you fire, you can only hire 4 new ones.

In a red state, the money would just be embezzled and then some semblance of the project is realized, preferably in a way that nobody can or would ever use, so nobody notices it's unusable.

You have to drive them horizontally. Not vertically.

Of course you're breaking ground if you slam a high speed train right into it. Jeesh.

We are talking about an IT person getting fired for being "too old". The athlete is something that was compared to.

What makes you think that someone who is considered "too old" at 35 for an IT job would get some other job?

Do I really have to explain how analogies work?

It's less that, it's more that I can't just tell me to fuck off and leave. That works in an abusive relationship, but what can you do if you notice you share a body with an asshole?

It's harder to exploit older people, that's true.

They have already heard all the bullshit and empty promises and just don't fall for them anymore.

And even if you fire most 35 year olds, there is always a need for someone to train the next generation of layoffs.

But like with coaches and trainers, you need far fewer than you need players.

The threat of any of an offtarget gene edit causing cancer is highly unlikely, but possible. The FDA in Dec.2023, for the first time, approved infusion with CRISPR edited cells as a treatment for sickle cell anemia. The way that works is .. they take some of your blood .. select certain type of stem cells, modify them, and then put them back in you. The reason that approach is safer is because we can check copies of the edited cells to make sure they haven't gotten potentially cancerous mutations. However, I don't believe CRISPR is yet ready for in-vivo (in the body, in a live person) clinical use (and I've worked on/with CRISPR tech for a while now btw fyi). A cell has many features that either block (aka tumor suppressor) or (if over-activated) cause cancer (oncogene). If CRISPR lands off-target on a tumor suppressor, it can enable the cell to become a cancer cell. If the DNA edit happens in the right spot near an oncogene (such as LMO2), it can inadvertently activate it. So off-target is dangerous. But forget off-target, .. even when it lands on-target there's still risks of triggering genome rearrangements (note: CRISPR base editors are not really susceptible to this). We can definitely fix these issues, but it will take time and sustained effort. CRISPR is barely 12 years old. Think of how long it took to make air travel safe, and that was with strong investment.