If a formal spec is messy, then it's a proof of ... what, exactly?

A formal specification that bridges tech and product, that lets non-technical contributors read and discuss all the logical nuances, directly as operational code, at product's level of abstraction of interest, would transform a lot.

It's no longer a challenge to create code, it's a challenge to create business requirements and translate them into systems.

As a result, life science researchers are more price-taking than proce-setting when it comes to their wages / salary. If money is the motivator, then the market as-is isn’t addressing this one.

Open source software changed the world. AI that will cheaply write whatever you want in a few days will also change the world.

As an afterthought budget item, those funds aren’t exactly attractive targets to raid for pursuing an expensive, different process.

Also, I encourage people not to change their writing style just to avoid patterns that AI likes to use. I'm going to continue my em dashes.

Now, the question is: what should the implementation details of online censorship be?

An unfortunate habit of medical messaging is to assert that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you haven’t studied a phenomenon well enough, you simply assume that it doesn’t exist or is not important.

Some people will say that this is important, because the public needs simplified messages. That viewpoint is misguided and denies patients autonomy by denying them the information needed to weigh matters themselves. It rightly causes many to view the advice they receive with suspicion toward an untrustworthy salesman who is either ignorant or intentionally misleading.