Even climate change denial has moved from denying the fact to denying that we can fix anything, for either economic or technical reasons.

This has always struck me as dishonest, but recently I've been blocked from accessing the docs of a service I pay for.

I don't have a good explanation for how candidates with zero ability to write code can make it through a hiring funnel to sit in front of you. Maybe they don't know what they don't know.

I feel that you did not address the specifics of what I wrote. It's a silly test because it's meant to cover the bare basics but it still relies on knowing/remembering the modulo operator, which junior hires might reasonably not have seen. If everyone didn't already know about fizzbuzz it would be even more stupid.

The bigger issue is not having seen fizzbuzz before, really.

Obviously it is unreasonable to continue walking with a stone in your boot because you want to adapt to it; equally obviously it is unreasonable to expect your boots to last forever without repair.

I disagree that ads are the only reason to dox someone. I assume that few pieces of writing would be controversial enough to warrant a fake identity, but those few would be important.

If I wanted to pseudonymously accuse a mayor of corruption, I think it would be safer to generate true stats and interview real people, but do so in an area I don't live, with some anecdotes where the facts don't quite match my life, using language that has been edited by a friend with a different writing style.

I can context switch between two or three chats, but doing so speeds up my agent use at the cost of making reviews and discovery harder, so it might come out in the wash.

I can't wait to be kept in agistment by my overlords, fed on treacle and oats, ridden in circles once a fortnight, and shot when I break a leg.

[0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based...

Writers like to impress that they and Derrida are in on a shared secret, but if this secret is not interesting then the reader must not be allowed to know it before doing some work. A barricade of allusions and references and filler is necessary to make readers feel like they really earned an insight.

Whereas if we took a step back and stripped off the allegories, we'd realise that Derrida's argument to Lacan about the nature of the phallus is not interesting and does not tell us much.

Probably a desire for a peaceful fading out of the human species rather than a violent one, but it's still far beyond PR naivety.