Oh and I guess negative b plus or minus b squared something something four a c over two a. I think there’s a square root to shove most of that into.
Genuine technological innovation in adaptation to low oxygen. Nay-sayers say it does nothing. Guys climb Everest in a week using said innovation. You can't argue with results, so they switch to:
"Himal Gautam, the director of Nepal’s tourism department, which is responsible for regulating expeditions on the nation’s mountains, said in an interview that using the gas was “against climbing ethics,” and that it would hurt the country’s tourism industry and the Sherpas who help climbers by reducing their time on the mountain."
and
"From a medical point of view, off-label use without a scientific basis and with unknown health risks must be rejected"
So it simultaneously does nothing and is unethical, and it doesn't matter whether it works anyway, because even if it did, it'd be against made-up "medical" rules.
I've never seen a stronger case for telling very serious people to go fuck themselves.
Or maybe I'm wrong and we're all headed for a future of being prompt engineers.
The juniors you train today someone will poach, surely, as you'll poach someone else's, and it levels out.
As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.