tldr: It's useless when there's only one person is developing and only one other person is making requests.

I was one of two IT people for my old company and I developed an information and documentation tracking portal that eventually grew to manage a great deal of the company's workflow. At some point someone realized that somehow they'd become dependent on this software for the workflow of pretty much every person in the company so they brought in a couple of "experts" to evaluate. One a database guy and one a "business process" guy (a six sigma ninja no less.. this is when I learned that this wasn't just something 30 Rock just made up, but instead something they were making fun of). Well, database guy came and went but business process guy decided that we needed to change platforms and switch to an AGILE development system. The hilarious part was that it took him almost two years to finish coming to that decision. Of course there was no adoption by the single customer and no use for the single developer so we just ended up going back to "fly by the seat of our pants" development. Useless waste of 20+ months...

We also tend not to put people exhibiting these behaviors in decision-making positions. ....except for in election years..

So, out of 1000 referrals from that person, there were 6 hires... I know it seems like it's a scam, but seriously, do they care at all about the referral? It seems like at best it did nothing at all for the candidate, and more likely they considered a referral by this person to be a negative...

I seems like the system works.. and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

apt remove ms-edge-browser

Oh oops.. It was actually 49/50 according to this video, but it seems to be the case that this year+ old video had outdated information in it at the time, and the one person that had been counted as a false positive was later diagnosed (8 months later.. seriously old news!) as having Parkinson's, making her tested accuracy 100%.

Yeah.. I haven't looked at the recent stuff, but the "very likely a real thing" wasn't really an issue before. I remember that she could identify correctly something like 48 out of 50 times. I'm glad for you that you believe its real because it's in a specific journal, but the stuff I saw long ago presented the evidence (and methodology) and it was from a very reputable source. OK, hell, this is so old, it had trickled down to youtube well over a year ago.. It seems that the BBC thing was even a bit old at the time..
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2Fft1jWR-4In0%3Ft...

I've noticed that YouTube's algorithm has had a sudden change in what it thinks I want to see. It's old stuff that's been around for a while on youtube, but I think it's move up because it doesn't have any of my normal new content to show.

Mind you, I really don't mind seeing Robin Williams on Johnny Carson/Tonight Show... or Andy Kaufman, but definitely not what it would have dug up for me a few weeks ago.

Yeah.. I was gonna say.. I don't care so much about the bandwidth, but anything to shut CNN up when I just want to read news.

I've generally tried to stick to other sites because of this behavior, but sometimes I still end up following a link that goes there..

Ya know, I could swear I'd heard about it even before that.. But I have a poor sense of time, so maybe it's only that old.. It really does seem like *forever* ago that I read about this first.

Then you fail, because they're testing to see if you can work to simplify the question not complicate it. Let the "customer" complicate it later if the need is there, but start with the simple solution.... and start with the easiest part of the solution and work toward the harder parts next.

Your kids must not harass you for their favorite candy as well. It's usually well above the $2500 mark when we go to the theater.

And he is somehow trying to say that the site about how language evolves proves that language can't evolve and it's dangerous. Sounds like my 7 year old trying to justify something. People still use "meat" to refer to parts of fruit etc.. ...and the first thing on Google when you search is from Merriam-Webster:

1
a: FOOD
especially : solid food as distinguished from drink
b: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell) ..or the petri dish I'd add..

Or I suppose you could do "Soylent Beef" and "Soylent Pork".. I kinda like the animal names though.. Never understood why we have an extra name for animals that we use mostly only when we mean eat them..

I like "Soylent Cow" or "Soylent Pig" for whatever they cultured.. Leaves some flexibility for varieties also..

It's a slow news day I guess..