Sorry, I worded (or recalled) that a little wrong. She didn't originally request MAID. She was seeing a counsellor for depression, partly due to being unable to pay her rent, and the counsellor suggested MAID as a possible solution for her. That's where it seemed to go off the rails.

Most of the concern these days isn't some old notion of it being a "sin". It's concern over abuse. That is, are there children in the picture that are trying to convince an elderly person to get MAID? Or is the system incentivized to offer MAID to people who are no longer paying into the system? In one case in Canada, a woman who was getting therapy for depression because she couldn't pay rent was *offered* MAID as a solution to her problems. I think this crosses an ethical line. There's a difference between someone requesting it, and it being offered as a solution. These are difficult ethical issues, and there's no simple right/wrong answers.

Yes, and this is the main problem that needs oversight. Most people are OK with MAID if a person is in pain and won't get better, and is lucid enough to understand the decision they're making. But you're correct that a system that has an incentive to offer it to a person who isn't paying into the system and is just a cost... that's an ethical problem. There was a woman in Canada who was approved for MAID, and her reason was that she was poor and couldn't pay her rent. There's just too many cases like this in Canada, which is why the inquiry recommended improvements. I'm just saying that anyone else who wants to try this should learn from our mistakes in Canada.

In Canada the law wasn't supposed to allow MAID for people with only mental health conditions, but an inquiry determined that the system was approving it for practically anyone who asked. It needs to have proper oversight that the rules are clear and are being followed to maintain public trust.

There are some examples of good writing out there (Andor is the most recent example I can think of). But the last few years has been particularly bad. From what I've heard, there was a short-sighted push to not just hire a whole bunch of diverse young writers, but to *get rid of* the old grey haired ones. The logical consequence is that you lose the necessary mentorship to support those young writers, and teach them the craft. Exhibit A is Disney's big flop: "Wish". This was supposed to be a big 100th anniversary movie for Disney, but the animation and writing was so atrocious that people in the industry couldn't believe Disney's famed animation department would release such an amateur movie. Insiders told the same story: management pushed out all the knowledgeable experienced people and replaced them with fresh new blood.

That tax money was at least spent on useful services, such as launching satellites or moving people to and from the ISS, and which costs *much* less than the same services performed under the NASA space shuttle program. You're laughing at them because they sold you services for cheaper? Doesn't make sense to me. I think you're laughing at them because you don't like their weird CEO. Why not just criticize the CEO, and let the engineers do their thing?

Scott Manley's video points out that there's a downcomer from the header tanks that goes right down that side of the ship, and it could be an overpressure event in that downcomer line.

It's not the message. But if you want to put a message in your movie, it needs to be *shown* instead of *told*. Show me something that gets me thinking about it, and let me come to my own conclusion. Of course that's much harder to write than just telling the audience what you want them to think. That's why we need good writers.

I barely remember Charlie's Angels. Wonder Woman was really good, but not the sequel.

I found myself trying to untangle the web of privacy issues around Copilot, and it was just a mess. More than half the time you end up on the privacy policy of a "different copilot". I might want to know what it's doing with my code if I use various license levels of Copilot in Visual Studio, but most of what I can find is about Copilot in Office 365, etc. And on the pages themselves they don't even differentiate different Copilot products! It's quite frustrating, and I wonder if they did that on purpose.

Even a good movie with decent writing can still have pandering that, if not ruining the movie, at least breaks you out of the immersion. The best example I can think of is Avengers Endgame, where, in the middle of the big finale, all the female heroes had to get together for a girl-power moment. I saw that movie in the theatre, and discussing it afterwards even the women in our group said they rolled their eyes at that. It was just so difficult to maintain your "suspension of disbelief" when they do stuff like that.

You are right, which is ironically why we don't want to see blatant pandering in our movies, and is related to why Hollywood is failing.

It worked for Bin Laden... for a few years anyway.

The thing is, we already have advanced refactoring tools. If I want to change a function signature and update it everywhere, that's a solved problem, as least in Visual Studio. It's right 100% of the time and I don't need to check its work in excruciating detail. Why would I ask an LLM to do it?

I think Novo Nordisk investors should be rightly angry with the management who let it lapse. But whatever.