Exactly. People vastly overestimate the intelligence of decision makers.

> You're essentially suggesting pre-PRs, but it us circular, since those same pre-PRs would have the same criticism.

Walking this road to the end you get pair programming.

You get to design committees where everything has to be approved in advance.

Yep, where productivity goes to die and your developers feel no autonomy/trust.

> In general I feel like PR reviews are basically reviews happening too late, and if there is a lot of stuff to review and agree upon in the PR, you'll be better off trying to reduce that up front by discussing and noting design decisions before the work even starts.

I agree in general and tried to push for a more iterate approach in our team. However, my fear is that this would multiply the effort because it's very easy to discuss many things that do not matter or turn out later to not matter.

It seems it's easier for people to only discuss the important stuff when presented as an actual implementation.

We are talking tendencies here, of course, general design decision must always be done beforehand.

> It seems it's easier for people to only discuss the important stuff when presented as an actual implementation.

LLMs help a lot here, create two prototypes with both designs, compare them together :) Could even evaluate how ergonomic some future potential change is, to see how it holds up in practice.

I used to use pen and paper to essentially do the same, minus having real code and instead just talking concepts, but it does suffer from the issue that some need to be confronted with code in front of them to visualize things better for themselves.

Seems to be an instance of the prevention paradox: Security (in general) is taken seriously enough that major incidences are low enough that people think that security does not matter that much.

I believe the probability to die or get missing for a middle aged person is extremely low.

So no, it's not expected that "some of a group of 5.000 Persons" would die or go missing.

I doubt that the US would win a war that far away without their allies providing infrastructure and Trump has alianated all western allies. I believe he is even capable to end those alliances in the middle of a war, resulting in effectively closing down military bases in Europe that are essential for the US.

> I’m giving this one to Qwen too, partly for the excellent <!-- Sunglasses on flamingo! --> SVG comment

You say you like the one from Qwen better and the only reason you give has nothing to do with the task.

In general, one should provide specific expectations regarding the properties of the image before the experiment. One important property should be "does not hallucinate stuff into the image that are unrelated to the prompt".

> Oh wait, wrong Thread!

Pretty sure actual Rust advocates will disagree.

I don't think you can entirely remove the side effect of getting treats.

Treats are without a doubt the only true universal language.

The second statement implies the negation of the first though. So OP is correct assuming the term "claim" includes "implies".

However, the original argument regarding smoking bias is correct of course.