If you're going to be a poorly written caricature of a super-villain you dispense with paying lip service to things like "efficiency". The point is to tear down and destroy, no matter what the cost.

Inundated from the vitriol online, I can't see an official statement from Microsoft in this. Were I a betting man, and I had one chip to stake, I would put it on this being patched.

Too many reasons to patch, and too few not to. Start with the jurisdictions where this would be legally problematic.

I'll wait for the deadline to come and go, and look for the angry post-bricking outcries.

Protect rights, regulate industries, and invest in public infrastructure?

The United States might need another 30 months to think about it.

I'm not sure how your point dovetails with or counters mine. I am saying exactly why I would choose the experienced worker for a remote position. It's because I believe that the growth I accept as valuable for new grads is stunted in remote work. So the cost benefit skews.

Sure, senior roles remaining filled does limit mobility, but it's outside of this tangent.

We could back this discussion out even further, though, and point out that what we have now is gross oversupply of workers for the field. And I think that's true. We have a pipeline with years of upcoming grads for which work will not exist. Most of those people should get out of tech and into trades. Not guaranteed imployment, but better than a bachelors in computing science. And cheaper..

If I had a remote position to fill, all else being equal I would be more likely to hire a more experienced worker over a new grad. I wouldn't leave the position unfilled if I only had new grad applicants, but if I have options...

In-person roles? I have hired a new grad over a more experienced person. Multiple times. My teams always had a good mix of senior and junior folks.

I just don't buy the idea that remote work doesn't come with a mentoring and growth penalty. And I'm not interested in arguing that point. I offer my own mindset as a concurring example.

If this is really permitted to be waved away with, "Oops, our bad. Fixed."... well, then, I don't know what accountability is left. Because this is an attack that is fundamental. The demonstrated failure is not an edge case - it's systemic. It's baked in, it might be about an email address vulnerability in the most narrow interpretation, but it sure doesn't end there. It's like doing an integrity test on a dam, finding the concrete is crumbling, fixing that one square foot of material and calling it good.

This ideal state sounds good but it is prohibitively expensive for all but deep pockets.

Ultimately the stock market trades pieces of companies. You might be "gambling" with your finances, but if the value of your 1 share of a company drops to zero, you still have 1 share of the company. Not gambling. Prediction markets are much closer to, say, fantasy sports. Educated guessing, but still guessing. If you get it right, your wager pays. Wrong, and the wager is lost.

Saying these markets aren't gambling is weasel-language. It's not even as honest as casinos. Imagine you had to play roulette but instead of playing against the house, you played against your table mates, and some of them already know the outcome before the marbles is tossed.

When the pace of bug discovery overwhelms the capacity to patch, and the discovery tools are available to... well, everybody... doing any business online is fraught with peril. You can't even triage trust by the integrity of the company. You might trust that "Valerie's Dog Treats" is legit, but their payment dependancy might be using compromised packages.

How in hell are we going to hold this thing together?

A good example, and why I used the adjective "often". There are exceptions. It depends on what you negotiate into your union terms.

The International Olympic Committee said the games are a "betrayal of everything that we stand for."

They can't betray something they never subscribed to in the first place. What you stand for isn't really important here. And you are not being asked to stand for what they do.

If it includes salaries, that's where it'll trip up. The difference between mediocrity and excellence is so pronounced that it's almost impossible to agree. The best won't agree, and will move on if it is implemented in any of the usual tiered structures.

You need to be able to pay for talent, and often that's antithetical to union philosophy.

The liver is already pretty magically awesome at healing.

Until it isn't.

That does not absolve them of blame...

Don't you worry. The justice system, executive orders, and everybody necessary in congress will do that part.

You're making my implied point. "In and of itself", as I said.

Of course if your goals are those that health facilitates, then I completely agree. But health is part of the mechanism, not the goal itself.