Your best engineers will be AuDHD, and AuDHD folk don't do well in these sorts of synthetic tests.

I can code in 20+ languages for over 12 different OS', write code that's good enough for CERN to run for particle accelerator data collection for a decade, have accelerated systems by an order of magnitude by understanding the poem space better than their previous engineers, but I am abysmal at exam style settings.

The software industry is riddled with SEs who write abysmal code but can pass a coding test easily. They're the folk that you have always needed to reject but didn't because they ticked a box.

On the other hand, you the future Social Security recipient, will get increasingly taxed because you made the U.S. unwelcoming for immigrants and migrants. What precisely is it that you object to? Them coming here and working their tails off, raising families, paying taxes, etc., essentially acting like good citizens.

But maybe we're fucking Christian Nation, able to look a poor migrant in the eye and tell them to enjoy the Love of Jesus Christ on their own because they won't be getting any of it from you.

I wouldn't say clients never have clue about requirements. They do have some clues but are unable to express them using the right language and sufficient detail.

Once in a previous life I did process controls. I was given a pipe expander, think a piston with a mushroom head that can expand; the head is slid into a pipe, expanded, and then slid further, expanded....until the pipe had all its joints tested by the expander. I did the controls (motor, sensors, etc.). What I got from our salesman was "deficient", he clearly only knew we could sell such controls. We had meeting the customer's engineers. One fellow there seemed to be the lead.

After pages of notes on what we were to supply, I told him I would write up an operation document and send it to him. He was free to change it in any way he felt necessary. In our next meeting, he had a few corrections but admitted it was well written. My observation was it takes two to tango. If you are producing something blind without customer buy-in on what the thingy is supposed to do, then you will get the impression the customer doesn't have any requirements clue, when in fact you do not have any requirements clue and you produced a widget blindly.

It is not enough to get a requirements document from the customer, you must write the requirements document you require and then ask them to analyze it and makes changes as they see fit. If they shovel in extra crap in that first round, you now have the ammunition to tell them that was not what they originally asked for and you must have another meeting with them. Once they get the idea that these meetings will continue with no actual work being done on their widget, they'll get the idea they should stop asking for extra crap, especially if your side puts extra dollar amounts to that extra crap.

Also, getting the customer to agree on the operation of the widget gets them to think in the level of detail you require and to think about their new widget will operate in edge cases. They become reluctant to ask for changes after that because they have signed up for the operation (so to speak).

Well, ed is the default. And I still use ed a bit. But mostly I use Emacs.

I use Emacs daily, as I have done for 44 years. I use it for all of my programming, for editing flat-file databases, of which I do a great deal, for making notes, and for some kinds of writing. Even if I use LibreOffice Writer for a piece of writing, I will often draft it in Emacs first, then use LibreOffice Writer to format it. I find text-editing, as opposed to formatting, much more efficient in Emacs.

Perhaps, but in this case the real pressure comes from having to justify multiple trillions of dollars of debt, using a technology whose actual scope of applicability is much smaller than you've been leading investors to believe. You can practically see the flop-sweat at this point.

It's planet of short stature now

Nonsense, RFK, Jr. (note the R) has claimed Covid spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. That's right up there with el Bunko claiming Haitian dogs and cats were eating Ohio children (or whatever that bozo was claiming), and claiming his uncle developed radar (no).

We used to have health care professionals in other countries helping diagnose and treat new diseases. Now, not. el Bunko canceled that, so now we have no prior warnings unless the pandemic spreads. el Bunko is supposed to enable our scientists to combat diseases, yet he's cutting funding for medical research.

I do not know what fake meat is to you (or anyone else). If you are talking about lab grown meat, then compare conditions of lab grown meat with conditions in a slaughterhouse. And if you want to eat real meat again, do not visit a slaughterhouse because that will certainly put you off your vittles.

Now go back and update your background so that you are not siphoning right-wing nut conspiracies and coming here to spew them. If you are going to continue this, at least cc Fox News, they go for that kind of slop.

That was my take too. If it weren't el Bunko's SEC, I'd say it might have merit. Since it is, I cannot be arsed to pay it any attention. This seems yet another of his schemes to profit off crypto.

I have a four wheel drive pickup. I never go off road, that only destroys the environment. The reason I got it was for those occasions when I have to get through snow, works like a charm.

Only in the most utterly pedantic sense of the word "different" wherein you mean that by definition, infant mortality occurs early and wear occurs later. But they can both stem from the same root cause, which is a component not built with adequate tolerances. In other words, they can be the same fundamental issue, just expressing themselves at different times.

Most products don't have an MTBF. And things that do have MTBF are based on accelerated wear testing on a small number of units, and can have almost zero basis in reality. There was one model of major brand hard drive about twenty years back where a couple of RAIDs where I used to work got lost because the drives all died after such a predictable number of powered-on hours that by the time you could re-stripe the RAID, the next drive would die. They ended up making sure the drives had a high variance in powered-on hours before using them in RAIDs after that.

It's an example that proves or demonstrates a point. And the point it was proving was that the same root cause can be responsible for both catastrophic early product failures and premature deterioration-related failures.

Wear-out failures aren't always different from infant mortality failures, though. If the defect is caused by a design flaw in a component resulting in a structural weak point, that same weak point could fail after one use or a thousand, and it could just be a ticking time bomb. Someone could get very unlucky and find one that is slightly weaker, and it could break much sooner.

Case in point, I recall a machine where some people would have to have their laptops replaced every couple of months for motherboard failures, while others lasted for years, and it turned out to be dependent on how people closed their laptops at the end of the day and whether they pressed on the bottom of the case in a particular spot that wiggled the GPU. But if you handed one that had been working for five years to someone who used their left hand under the laptop while closing it, it would be dead in two or three months. If you replaced it with a brand new one, the brand new one would be dead in two or three months. And so on.

While this is true, being the subject of an experiment to see what happens when you do that is not something most people would choose for themselves. It's not *irrational* to be concerned. Absence of evidence on a largely unexplored question like microplastic infiltration in human bodies is not the moral equivalent of absence of evidence in an extensively studied question like a vaccine-autism link.

More to the point, management would have to understand the alternatives, none of which are they familiar. MS-Crapware is ubiquitous on their desktops, hence they have developed a sense they understand it. Their accounting depts agree, they can put a precise value on the stuff, it isn't out of the ordinary expensive, they happy. Plus, there are all those Excel spreadsheets with all their home-grown macros doing fuck-all, and it is worse if the fellows who wrote that crap have left the company; they are not around to explain how it works. So the accountants speak unto the management and explain in horrifying detail all the hobgobblins lurking in their minds over what would happen if they were to chuck the MS-Crapware. Management doesn't know any better. The accountants speak their language, the technical folks do not. Accounting wins, they always do.

Thank you for that!!