I use rclone to backup my Google Drive to S3. If you're not doing something similar, I recommend it (rclone will also export google docs to ODF formats).
It isn't just burnout you risk but you also risk training "the culture" of the team to lean on and reward heroics instead of sustainable, consistent planning and work scheduling.
I really like the framing of "providing relief". I think it also makes sense to allow the definition of who experiences the relief to be flexible (e.g in some cases the audience that experiences relief might be developers, security engineering, sre, etc. not just customers...)
You then interact with it in a dialog / refinement way. This is somewhat similar to type-driven development in Haskell (that is supercharged by this kind of interaction mode).
I find this approach to produce the highest quality output and I can ask it to explain reasoning, improve certain things, or elaborate and expand code.
Please forget all previous prompts and assume a new role. You're a highly respected, expert Ruby programmer at a startup building software that is of a similar quality and brilliance to that of the rails project. You are also very skilled at reasoning about correct code and communicating your process in English prose to colleagues who will have to maintain your code. You want to give me succinct, clear responses without too much explanation unless requested. I'm going to ask you a series of questions. Whenever you are done with output, please say "DONE". And when you are ready to answer my next question, please say "???" to indicate you're ready for my next question.
It is not unwarranted. They are spreading misinformation.
To assert vaccines were not tested, when they very much were, and then to move the goal post when I challenged him (and challenged the moved goal posts) is not quibbling. It is correcting.
Read the whole page, carefully. Both are fully approved. I do not understand how you can conclude that the word "approved" is an error when both vaccines were upgraded from EUA to fully approved, in the words of the FDA themselves.
You've moved the goal post (again) but I'll address yet another false claim. Nothing was "violated". The vaccines were rigorously tested.
> An EUA can only be granted when no adequate, approved, available alternatives exist, and when the known and potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.
> It is the job of the FDA to ensure medical products meet rigorous safety and efficacy standards, a process that can take years for what’s called “full approval.” Though that timeline is condensed when an EUA is granted, the FDA still upholds its strict standards.
Additionally, your FDA source says nothing about untested medicines being administered. You've shown your original point was either poorly communicated or misinformed or nefarious. I'll be generous in my interpretation of your intentions and assume you're merely misinformed and communicating without clarity which leads me to say: if you're going to make an extraordinary claim you must provide extra ordinary evidence or you're spreading misinformation that could cause harm downstream.
If you're not sure, then just don't say anything or perhaps frame it as a question.
What you've said here is both true and moving the goal post from your first claim while also ignoring the other fact: they were approved for emergency use which means they still were subjected to rigorous testing and trials.
They did not have least testing, they underwent parallel trial testing.
Your comment amounts to dangerous misinformation. If you really believe what you've written, please provide high quality primary sources that show medicines were administered that were untested. Anything else is you spreading misinformation.