I can't speak for the Mamiya Press but the Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8 for the Graflex XL is rad.

I have multiple open roles right now and am finding that I can’t afford to hire the top applicants. I honestly did not expect to have so little leverage.

And that should be expected. Leverage in this situation doesn't mean you get the cream of the crop for nothing. In this sense it means that you get applications that fit your role. When the market was flipped you were hard pressed to find people that actually matched at least half of your role requirements. Now even your statement gives away how much that has changed that you're only looking at the 'top applicants'. Now, you have so many people that fit you're struggling because you want the perfect ones.

I did expect there to be more strong applicants, but that hardly means I expect "perfect" applicants or "cream of the crop for nothing." With one role, for example, there are basically unqualified people, and qualified people who won't accept the top of our range (~$120K).

Don't forget the Native Americans in Peter Pan!

Just dropping by to say how much I passionately hate documentation that uses fib() as an example.

As a lawyer I think this could potentially be litigated as a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

Would the question still be about measuring the drop in quality to prove that the product (the software in this case) is in breach of the law?

Well, it would probably need to be part of a physical product and not software alone unless the vendor is dumb and forgot to disclaim the warranty (see https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol16/iss2/6/).

Second, it’s not exactly about whether the change constitutes a drop in quality but whether it renders the product unfit for its ordinary purpose. The argument would essentially be that the change is a deliberately introduced defect.

It’s a little weird but a plausible claim given the right facts.

I wonder how this compares to Technical Pan, which I imagine it was modeled after.

Eh, kind of. Right now I'm hiring for a role where nobody remaining in my applicant pool is qualified (all have only some of the experience I need) but I'm probably still going to hire one of them. Does that "qualify" them? No. It just means I'm probably going to hire despite it.

There’s always treason

That has never worked well in America.

Rather than trying to trip up the LLM I find it’s much easier to ask about something esoteric that the LLM would know but a normal person wouldn’t.

That basically amounts to the same thing. LLMs are pretty good at faking responses to conversational questions.