Simple and easy are often conflated a bit, but measured by outcomes, are quite different. Comments offerring humorous parallels of common simple and easy conflations will follow.
Carfentanyl potentcy is roughly 10,000 times morphine. The pursuit of optimized technology usually far outpaces regulation or any kind of control. As technologies are controlled, even the lessened availability of more potent types causes an enormous overall issue. Humans are obsessive-compulsive optimizers, for good and for ill.
You seem to be referencing as core business value a combination of (1) the ability to maintain a (2) business criitical resource, but stating it as if catastrophizing from a hasty generalization. Can you clarify?
It's really not that simple. A lot of what's involved is fungible. Of course, the answer to "Was the greatest intelligence harnessed to make the greatest decision?" Is always no.
AIs can be swapped for one another, run locally, and implemented in ways that are less prone to loss of function. Loss of anyone who understands the working code is a type of risk, but that kind of issue tends to bounce between losing skill from lack of foresight due to economic savings, and overhiring / bringing back lost employees as consultants.
I totally understand the downvote, as bad player adds bad tech must = bad. I'm just pointing out that the terrible search interface / results / algorithm / intention of Amazon is, for now, a bit alleviated by their AI interface that filters much more reliably based on prompt, and can adjust the prompt.
The "here's where you're getting it wrong" discussions on glucagon‑like peptide‑1 receptor agonists are paralleling AI discussons. Interesting to watch these two domains of knowledge sparking (mis)framing arguments happening at roughly the same time.
As a technical writer (off and on, for the U.N. at one point) since the late 1980's, I've learned that much good technical writing must start with some form of "It’s surprisingly simple, actually," or you're choosing to lose some readers right away.
This happened about four years ago, and was worse than I am conveying in its additional details. I can't imagine this being encouraged, and I can imagine it being trained against, but the personality type/worldview seems too common to mitigate simply by discouraging it.
It seemed especially sociopathic in how the employee actively avoided understanding what they were told, and actively reframed it. I would have expected a more bureaucratic 'this is how we have do it for internal reasons' kind of reponse, rather than actively avoiding understanding. Similar to traditional complaints in the past about active Wikipedia / Stack Overflow types.
If the passwords are still not known, the "breach" is not a fail for the end user. If the master password to the vault is secure, and the only way to the vault is still only through the master password, it's still doing what the end user wants it to do. "Breach" is meaningless without qualifiers.
Clueness sometimes goes hand-in-hand with perceived freedom. I think it's that cause and effect are not as often connected (consequences). I remember a Google employee updating a Google font that broke thousands of websites. Community members explained that Google recommended (at that time) letting Google host the font, and that they could fork it instead, or find a path that wouldn't break so many websites. The employee took the implication of consequences as being connected to ther actions as an aff(r)ont "They can just host it themselves"; "they can switch to another font/redesgin their site". When it was pointed out that the cause would not be known to most, and that budgets would have to be found to ferret out the cause and implement the solution, etc., etc., the Google employee stopped responding.
You can get some branded prescription pharmaceuticals in the U.S. from outside the U.S. via workarounds (1), and find heavily tested peptides via (2), in both cases avoiding the worst of the black or gray markets. If peptides, it's worth passing the hurdles and tests to access resources at https://pep-pedia.org/
(1) Start by filtering for Brand (not generic) and then going though lowest-cost results for reliable branded manufacturing locations (e.g. Germany, New Zealand, Singapore, NOT India) at https://www.pharmacychecker.com/ . Some sources are less picky about accurately checking prescriptions (e.g. https://www.inhousepharmacy.vu/ ). US Gov't allows buying outside U.S. for personal use, but reserves right to block incoming packages, but practically speaking does not.
CVS (drugstore chain) and Walgreens were among the first major U.S. merchants to accept Alipay via QR code payments, allowing Chinese consumers (and anyone with Alipay) to pay at these stores.