I think the expectation is more that serious people have their work checked over by other serious people to catch the obvious mistakes.

Every time you have your work "checked over by other serious people", it eliminates 90% of the mistakes. So you have it checked over twice so that 99% of mistakes have been eliminated, and so on. But it never gets to 0% mistakes. That's my experience anyway.

Every time you have your work "checked over by other serious people", it only means it's been checked over by other people. You can't attach a metric to this process. Especially when it comes to security, adding more internal eyeballs doesn't mean you've expanded coverage.

One of the things I enjoy about Penn and Teller is that they explain in detail how their point of view differs from the audiences and how they intentionally use that difference in their shows. With that in mind you might picture your org as the audience, with one perspective diligently looking forwards.

Serious people like to look at things through a magnifying glass. Which makes them miss a lot.

I've seen printed books checked by paid professionals that consisted a "replace all" populated without context. Creating a grammar error on every single page. Or ones where everyone just forgot to add page numbers. Or a large cook book where index and page numbers didn't mach, making it almost impossible to navigate.

I'm talking of pre-AI work, with publisher. Apparently it wasn't obvious for them.

> Back in my day there was nothing wrong with how testing happened, I know because I succeeded in that system.

The above is maybe not an entirely fair summary, but I think it captures the spirit of Bobby's comment in vivid detail.

"We will add privacy features in the future" is hard to reconcile with "we are fighting for privacy now"

I think the "bold innovation" framing partly because the current administration is making green technology a though crime, and partly just the ambient American tendency to describe any incremental improvement as groundbreaking.

A real McMurdo sticker does seem incredibly cool!

The funny thing is I'm at McMurdo now but they don't seem to have any at the store at the moment

The above is a self-referencing comment.

The more common solution I've seen is asking the person sending the link for clarification.

"It won't be the same if I just tell you, you have to watch it" - my mom on the video of some fake MD selling his miraculous variant of vitamin C that cures everything from cancer to dementia.

See, that's pretty clear indication you can ignore it isn't it?

Then nobody paid and pii was published, now an integrity agency is starting an investigation

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/integritetsmyndigheten-in...

> Leif Pagrotsky, som då var näringsminister, har i efterhand avslöjat att avskaffandet av arvsskatten var en eftergift från Regeringen Persson till Svenskt Näringsliv

Well, not quite.

Most of all this noise is just the product of the drawn out legislative process of the EU, the commission included chat control in a larger package suggested ca 2021 and it's been working itself through the system since then, generating headlines every few months.

By now it's just too late to take it back and start over without including chat control.