Sure, MLC write life is worse than SLC, but significantly better than TLC and QLC
-edit: this comment was purely focused at your first sentence:
>The fastest SSDs tend to also be MLC which tend to have much lower write life vs other technologies.
I'm not sure what you mean with "other technologies" in this case, SLC is indeed truly expensive for a significantly higher write life, and HDDs are debatable for their lifespan.
I don't think the military will care if your open source library contains a "not for military purposes" restriction; and there is practically no way for you to verify.
You might not be able to run out of Netflix, but you will run out of the good content quite fast, especially if you only have the content available in $COUNTRY
A pull-request based approach is more sane than changing CI/CD to CI/C-MergeConflicts
"pull requests sacrifice performance, including both delivery time and quality"
Delivery time does not matter if your feature is not fully implemented; "Your team members should share your norms for quality" (paraphrased)
The article mentions having "regular, scheduled reviews" which sound like a chore and break flow more than having to review a PR every now and then. Having these on a weekly basis (as the article suggests) while having everyone push daily means you have 5 days of incomplete, unchecked code in your codebase, per engineer, every week.
CI and PRs are not mutually exclusive, you can have your github PR in "draft-mode" and it should still run the same workflows. Have your tests be automated and when the feature is done and passing; you request a review.
-edit: this comment was purely focused at your first sentence:
>The fastest SSDs tend to also be MLC which tend to have much lower write life vs other technologies.
I'm not sure what you mean with "other technologies" in this case, SLC is indeed truly expensive for a significantly higher write life, and HDDs are debatable for their lifespan.