The better candidate is spending more on the evaluation.
E.g, for my company's twice-yearly evaluation, everybody writes up a short report on the most impactful stuff they've done including evidence, this is evaluated by their manager to give a score, and then there's a series of group meetings between managers to make sure that the scores are calibrated, including looking at all types of metrics that can be dug up and comparing to our written role descriptions for different levels. It takes a lot of time but creates fair scores.
This is extremely labor intensive, but that's the thing: To create anything resembling fair evaluation of a large group of people that do a large set of different things, you need to do things that are labor intensive. Using a simple set of metrics don't cut it.
I've lived in Norway (>30 years), Ireland (>10 years) and in California (3.5 years). There's extreme differences in culture around dog ownership in different areas. In the time I lived in Norway, nobody I knew had abandoned a dog. Getting a dog is a commitment for the lifetime of the dog; the only cases I've heard of relocation of dogs from anybody I knew has been for medical reasons (e.g. discovering somebody in the family has an allergy). In Ireland, it is similar, though people don't seem to take quite the same commitment (based on known several people that got dogs from shelters). In my relatively small social circle in California there were two families that got and handed off dogs in the 3.5 years I was there. It was just not seen as a big deal.
An A3 (11-3/4" x 16-1/2") poster here in Ireland starts at around 7 euro ($7.50). 80 euros is presumably for the aluminium dibond print - which sounds like an extreme quality print material, and those gets expensive fast. An A3 on that starts at about 50 euro (and it sounds like the author got an A2 - twice the size of an A3.)
I spent a decade or so of my life writing assembly, and a few years as a performance specialist for a programming team. What you're describing is a specialist skill. There's nothing wrong with it - it's a good skill to have - but there is no need to have everybody in the team have it, and you can expect better results by having some people develop that skill and other people develop other skills.
Back in the 1990s, I was a FreeBSD guy, and at some point I looked over the code for a few of the popular Linux ISA networking drivers for some reason and was shocked at the low quality. The code quality of the core Linux kernel is generally excellent - the code quality of these drivers was at the level of "lowest passing undergraduate's second C program". I'd not be at all surprised if this turned out bugs giving bad performance; drivers are often considered finished when they produce the expected result, and network protocols have enough recovery mechanisms that you can get the expected result with a fair number of bugs.
The NE2000 clones worked fairly well in FreeBSD at the same time all the complaints were coming over in Linux-land. To be fair: You'd usually have less support for hardware in FreeBSD than Linux at the time (and almost certainly still.)
It also didn't help that these cards often had weird hardware failures (maybe because clone?) that would make them flaky but people would keep them in service because Ethernet cards were still relatively expensive at the time and, as you point out, network protocols are pretty resilient.
I used to have to literally break flaky cards in half--not kidding. Three different people fished a card out of my trash and only stopped when they realized I physically broke it--and this was about 2001-ish.
> If this loophole exists it probably goes against the intention of the lawmakers and would be struck down by supreme court.
It's Common law not French/European law. The intent of the lawmakers is, in common law, more or less completely assumed to be present in the text of the law. French/European courts looks to the context the law was made in and other documents produced; common law judges mostly don't (but do look much more to precedent.)
And there is of course the problem of judges in the US being fairly strongly partisan politicised (since all power in the US is partisan politicised), so the interpretation will depend on which party has lately stuffed the supreme court.
You can dual-license if you own the full copyright ownership but if you include GPLed stuff (and don't have the full copyright ownership) you'll have to GPL the result.
As for "at least as permissive" - it requires no further restrictions, but it adds a bunch of restrictions itself. And there's no other license that doesn't add restrictions - MIT adds restrictions to reproduce the MIT license, which is an extra restriction. The restrictions are attempted excused by the FSF under the "attribution" clause of the GPL, but it is not clear to me that is valid and it has not tested by any court.
E.g, for my company's twice-yearly evaluation, everybody writes up a short report on the most impactful stuff they've done including evidence, this is evaluated by their manager to give a score, and then there's a series of group meetings between managers to make sure that the scores are calibrated, including looking at all types of metrics that can be dug up and comparing to our written role descriptions for different levels. It takes a lot of time but creates fair scores.
This is extremely labor intensive, but that's the thing: To create anything resembling fair evaluation of a large group of people that do a large set of different things, you need to do things that are labor intensive. Using a simple set of metrics don't cut it.