All of their children will die; it is only a matter of when.

Put another way: every time a parent gives birth, they are bestowing the irrevocable gift of one day experiencing dying to their child.

But that might be seen as being in the spirit of C++

One might even say that this is another instance of the same template.

Hey now, you should be thanking your teachers for this incredibly valuable early life lesson on the difference between what the customer says that they want and what they actually need, and which of these two you are going to get paid more for!

Remember: the customer is always right!

/s

Could someone point me to a more in-depth legal analysis of this bill? The text of it is here. It looks to me like it is mostly about replacing vague parts of the U.S. code with regards to patents with more explicit instructions, and one of these instructions even seems to give courts explicit permission to judge whether an invention is eligible for a patent rather than taking this power away:

IN GENERAL.—In an action brought for infringement under this title, the court, at any time, may determine whether an invention or discovery that is a subject of the action is eligible for a patent under this section, including on motion of a party when there are no genuine issues of material fact.

Furthermore, one really nice thing that this bill does is that it makes it clear that if the invention or discovery solely involves a process or material occurring naturally with no modification–a human gene being explicitly called out–then it is explicitly ineligible for a patent.

To be clear, though, I am not a legal expert, which is why it would be great if someone would provide an in-depth analysis of exactly where the problem is rather than just saying that the bill is bad.