It feels a little disrespectful. It feels a little pointless (why am I bothering talking to you if I can get the same result from the AI). I have no idea whether you've given the problem any actual thought, or if you're just copy-pasting an answer. I have no idea if you actually believe what you're telling me (or if you've even read it or understand it).

I can understand it in the context of the Manhattan project, where you're fighting a war for survival. I cannot understand how you can do it as a commercial enterprise.

Your own article makes this exact point: > Matthew Shoemaker, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who left the agency in 2021, said that while Signal was used during his time in government, “it was almost exclusively restricted to scheduling purposes,” such as letting their boss know that they’ll be late to work because of personal circumstances. “That’s why Signalgate is all the more staggering — because these senior leaders were doing the exact opposite of what even my most junior intelligence officers knew not to do,” he said.

You're doing bullshit partisan whataboutism. "well the democrats did it first".

This has nothing to do with adding the wrong contacts. It has to do with putting highly-sensitive material into Signal to circumvent the law around records preservation and as a result creating a situation where it's possible to accidentally add the wrong contact and therefore exposing that information to a journalist.

I work in this area and you're right that Medicare can require a huge amount of paperwork from providers. And a hospital will have far more than 2 FTEs for this (it's called Revenue Cycle Management).

The Amnesty article that you're citing is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The Baltimore Police Department did not need to learn about constitutional violations from the Israelis.

He was hired because we needed a contractor quickly and he and his company represented to us that he was a lot more experienced than he actually is.

When he was first hired, I asked him to refactor a core part of the system to improve code quality (get rid of previous LLM slop). He submitted a 2000+ line PR within a day or so. He's getting frustrated because I haven't reviewed it and he has other 2000+ line PRs waiting on review. I asked him some questions about how this part of the system was invoked and how it returned data to the rest of the system, and he couldn't answer. At that point I tried to explain why I am reluctant to let him commit his refactor of a core part of the system when he can't even explain the basic functionality of that component.

Sure, he could have submitted a ill-considered 3800 line PR five years ago, but it would have taken him at least a week and there probably would have been opportunities to submit smaller chunks along the way or discuss the approach.