What disclaimer? The one locked in the bottom of a filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door that reads "Beware of the Zeptosaurus"?

When I give programming questions in an interview, I always say, "you can write the solution in any language you feel comfortable in" because the point is just to confirm that they know how a computer works, and can simulate the local state of the computer in their mind. "The variable is initialized with 0, and then after the first loop it contains 3," etc. I also usually ask them a question that involves figuring out the volume of a cylindrical tank, and I say "pretend I'm google if you need to look something up", not because I want to know that they can use Google, but because I want to know if they grasp the concept that volume is base times height. There are a surprising number of people who apply for programming jobs who have zero spatial sense, and certain aspects of this job require it. Heck, I interviewed a graduate of an electrical engineering program who couldn't convert an answer from A to mA. You can't just not ask technical questions in interviews. A surprising number of people get through life without a solid understanding of how the world works within the confines of their own field.

Build what, exactly??

What they promised??

Cure cancer. Solve world hunger. Fix climate change. Etc.

They can't even be profitable, whereas my niece can make money from selling lemonade on a hot Saturday.

AI execs are a waste of space.

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.

You are incompetent... at AI. You've never even made a good faith attempt to utilize it productively. That is the definition of willful ignorance.

There have been some interesting threads on Twitter recently where they discovered that by flipping two bits in a local AI model they could convert it to full "KILL ALL HUMANS!" mode where everything it generates looks like posts from the deep, dark depths of Reddit.

By definition, because it's vibe-journalism pandering to the fad-trend of the moment.

That article is in production for next week, I'm sure.

Thank god for that. It was hard enough to learn 9 (now 8) planets at school. Can you imagine having to learn all the names if the hydrostatic equilibrium definition held?

Since when does science work by a standard of "what is easy for children to memorize lists of"? Do we say "There are 8 rivers in the world, and all others are dwarf rivers, which really aren't rivers" to make it easier on kids? Do we say "There are 8 bones in the human body, and all others are dwarf bones, which don't really count as bones"?

That's not how science works. Science is focused on practical distinctions about how things developed and their physical properties relative to each other. Hydrostatic equilibrium is a very practical definition. The process of undergoing relaxation induces metamorphism and releases heat, altering bodies. You go to non-equilibrium bodies if you want to study the primordial makeup of our solar system. You go to equilibrium bodies if you want to study tectonics, volcanism, non-primordial chemistry, and search for past or present life. The boundary could not be more meaningful. Yes, there is a bit of fuzz between equilibrium and non-equilibrium, but the same applies to pretty much all scientific fields.

Supporters of the IAU definition (which I should add was a deeply biased sample, in that it looked like they were headed toward no definition or a hydrostatic equilibrium definition, so most supporters of that left, but the people trying to switch it to an orbit-clearing definition stayed) will argue that it's cleared if the remaining objects are trivial transients or in orbital resonance. But that's not what the IAU definition says. Also they'll point to the Stern-Levison parameter, but (A) that was based on the ability to scatter today's distribution of asteroids, not the primordial distribution, which included outright planetissimals**; and (B) Mars didn't even clear it's own orbit, Jupiter did. Also, in the paper that introduced the Stern-Levison parameter, they argued for a better definition where you combine adjectives and nouns (each with specific implications about the body) as needed to describe its size, composition, etc.

But the OP's point stands, in that it's stupid to say that something is a "dwarf planet", yet not a planet. It's like saying dwarf stars aren't stars or dwarf galaxies aren't galaxies or whatnot. An adjective-noun is almost always a noun, that's how language works. In the cases where an adjective-noun isn't a noun - say, "shooting star" or "slow worm" or whatnot - we treat these as scientifically erroneous colloquialisms, and formalize corrected scientific terminology. We don't do literally the opposite and have science codify misleading language.

Speak for yourself, Pluto is fascinating. Tectonically active. Cryovolcanism so abundant it appears to have formed large mountains by the merger of individual domes. A gigantic scar exposing its mantle, which over time roils in massive convection cells, pockmarked in sublimation pits. Mountains drifting like icebergs and accumulating on the shore. Penetentes (sublimation ice spikes), the size of large hills. A multilayer blue atmosphere, in which organic chemistry occurs, depositing not just organic matter onto its own surface, but that of its moon as well. Active glaciation. A probable subsurface ocean, in contact with rock. Conditions suggesting it was habitable when it formed.

IMHO, it's way more interesting than a number of recognized planets.

(Also, I'm confused by your response. This isn't about the moon, and the moon has no atmosphere for flying)

Objects in Mirror Appear Smaller Than They Are (*)

(*) Astronomical telescope joke.

[flips through English - French phrase book]: "Oooch!"