kongolongo

Sure it might have an impact, but again the culpability of harm isn't on the consumer or advertiser. If people able to shop around for doctors to get any prescription then isn't that the problem, not the advertisement?

It doesn't matter if the adverts have an impact on sales, if it does then doctors are to blame, tv adverts cant prescribe people medication.

>Eventually, doctors that resist the pressure loose in the market, because they end up less liked and more criticized. And that is about it.

Sounds like the incentives for doctors are misaligned. They shouldnt be subject to market demand for improper prescribing, for example that should be offset by fines or license revocation for misprescribing. Consumers cant be expected to know if a treatment is appropriate, so they consult doctors and if doctors are swayed by financial incentives to prescribe thats on the doctors.

>If these ads didn't do much the industry wouldn't be spending billions of dollars on them.

Thats speculative. Companies spend exorbitant amounts of money on things they lose money on all the time. What's not speculative is consumers cant buy the drugs themselves. They might ask doctors about it, but if the doctors are misprescribing that's on them or their training and not the consumer.

Consumers can directly buy alcohol and tobacco, they cannot buy prescription drugs directly. If there is a problem isn't the primary culprit the prescriber?

Why are prescription drug ads bad? Its not like consumers can prescribe or buy it for themselves.

If there is a problem with overconsumption or misuse of prescription drugs isn't the blame on the medical professionals that prescribe them? Ads to the general public seems far down on the list of culprits here.

>Is there some good reason for this approach (need to get config updates into the wild as quickly as possible to combat zero-days or zero-hours?) or was this just a massive oversight?

I'm curious of this too. Has there ever been a scenario where zero-days could have caused so much damage that it'd warrant this speediness in patching? In a cost-benefit analysis would it justify x% of patches like this happening in preventing whatever security issues could occur without this type of infrastructure?

I'd guess that's part of why they get thousands of applications per role?

On Windows 11, task manager has a search function now!

Here's a hypothesis: no positive number is evenly divisible by 3 trillion one. True up to 3 trillion then false at 3 trillion 1.

I don't think that necessarily is a a bad thing. Just because someone can theoretically afford a mortgage payment now its pretty difficult to predict say 5+ years out whether or not that steady job will hold, especially if they're young and have a short credit history. The down payment adds a cushion for that risk. There's less inherent risk to renting, you're looking at a commitment of 6 months to a max of maybe 2 years for most least terms.

Being too risky with handing out mortgages is partly what lead to the housing bubble in 2008 afterall.

If they're really certain their job will be stable long term PMIs shouldn't really be a deterrent, most PMI can be terminated after meeting 20% in equity.

This analogy is interesting do you think there are some lawyers that consider themselves 10xlawyers haha. It make sense that a lot of it would be similar to documentation and meetings and various agile ceremonies and not just 2200 hours of straight legal argumentation and writing.

The Harry Potter game was a little bit more complicated, I think PoGo was probably the simplest, at least at launch, I'm not sure what its like now, and other than being a super well-known IP is partially why it was successful IMO. I guess you could probably point to that also being one reason why the HP game wasn't as successful despite also being a popular IP. I haven't tried Pikmin Bloom.

You haven't shown its extra spending with just that one stat. Does $50 USD buy you the same things in the US as $50 USD in Venezuela?

You can't judge how much of a burden healthcare costs are unless you account for how much of a person's income or some proxy of it healthcare is. Just saying that the US spends more per capita than other OECD countries doesn't say anything without more context. IF you want to show that the healthcare spending isn't efficient in the US you have to at least show that it's not just because everything costs more there or that everyone earns more in the US (gdp/capita is higher than ~85% of OECD in US).