Imagine your hoarder scenario except that the hoarder has unlimited storage space and a team of librarian/warehouse workers to go find and fetch the items needed for the wall hanging task.

Namely - I put near zero effort into this response, and deciding if it's correct is on you. -> I'm asking you to read it and figure out if it's correct because I couldn't be bothered to do so

It's a shame because the underlying message of not overloading teams with extremely broad feature areas is good, and was exactly what we needed.

The banks know this is a structural issue, but are likewise incentivized to keep "strong assets" on their balance sheet, rather than a bunch of troubled assets bound for default.

The claim isn't that they can keep this up forever, it just needs to last another quarter, every quarter.

The shell game is both parties knowing that the cups are all empty but still playing because it's better for them both to do so.

If they sign a lease at a new lower rent it basically triggers a re-check of "can they repay the loan based on their rental income?", which comes back as "no". That trigger _doesn't_ occur if you just leave the building empty, with _no one_ paying rent, because your last mark to market rent was high enough.

Fundamentally changing the type of tenant in the building would presumably trigger that check as well.

It's a shell game that eventually leads to the loan defaulting, but both the bank and the building owner are happy to pretend they can't see the train coming down the tracks at them.

For an example of this in Seattle that everyone was calling years ahead of the collision, see the Martin Selig sagas https://deepnewz.com/real-estate/seattle-developer-selig-war...

If anything, I feel like AI has made domain expertise more important, not less, as the "confidently wrong" error case for agents has no one able to sanity check it. At least before AI a human would dip their toe in the water and usually realize that having no idea what they were doing, and not even being able to understand what the comments mean, was a sign that they need to go find someone more experienced to help.

This is why with rare, rare exceptions nothing "real" is on Microsoft.com including even the login page, with one exception (the passkey domain).

The new cloud.microsoft domain for Office will possibly help, but it's still a heck of a long list - https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/enterprise/u...

And IIRC this is just for office and windows, not azure.

The one op is referencing is more like the dollar is used to pay off the waitstaff, who pay their rent to the landlord, who pay their over due taxes, so that the government can issue a refund to the cafe owner. The dollar ends up back in the hands of the cafe owner, who puts it back down on the table with all the debts paid off.

Sounded far fetched back then, and on the face of it illegal, but now it's just common sense I imagine.

Not every company is going to see those boundaries and stakeholders as features, and they'll be under pressure to "mitigate those blockers to execution". That's where the cognitive debt skyrockets.

Given that the author didn't say any of the things you claimed, and indeed said the opposite, it leads one to conclude you have a problem with the example used.

Some systems I've worked on had APIs that averaged less than one per second, but I don't think we want to be measuring in millibecquerels. Some have measured on millions of requests per hour, because the hourly usage was a key quantity, as rate limits were hourly as well.

Like yes, it would be nice for Map(ICar[] cars, keys).wingspan to throw a type error because cars is typed and we know keys can't include things not in ICar.

But to say that Map(Any[] things, keys) should have ahead of time type checking seems like you're not really using types except when inconvenient. Which might be taken as a no true scotsman or "holding it wrong" argument but... Maybe they are holding it wrong.

(Speaking as a former Windows/CLR PM now working in a Ruby monolith... It's hell and indeed trying to add types via sorbet has been miserable and useless)

If I told the DJ at my wedding to play an album front to back, and they transitioned to Aerosmith, I'd be tapping a friend to run the music the rest of the night.

Unless you're getting the device logs from the users device (in which case... All of this is moot) there is no timing attack. Six months ago you got your mobile drivers license. And then today you used it to validate your age to a website anonymously. What's the timing attack there.

1. You don't want these to be replayable (give your JWT to someone else to use) so they need to be bounded in some ways (eg intended website, time, proof it came from you and not someone else).

2. You don't want the government to know which website you're going to, nor allow the government and the website to collaborate to deanonymize you (or have the government force a website to turn over the list of tokens they got). So the government can't just hand you a uuid that the website could hand back to them to deanonymize.

The SD JWT and related specs solve for these, which is how mDL and other digital IDs can preserve privacy in this situation.