Just the other day, there was a highly relevant tidbit on Freakonomics about the perverse incentives at play in meetings: http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/13/ball-hogs-and-long-meetings/ To summarize: in general, people judge the competence of others at meetings based on how much they talk, rather than the quality of what they say. The consequence is that people have a strong individual incentive to waste time on trivialties, which degrades the usefulness of the meeting. Additionally, groups tend to strongly favour the first thing which is suggested, without properly considering alternatives, which leads to a tendency towards poor decision making.

It's very possible that I'm being overly prickly about terminology, but I have to take exception to calling anti-aliasing in general a 'hack'. Aliasing is a well-understood artefact of sampling. If your continuous ('infinite resolution') image contains frequency components above the nyquist frequencies of sampling, aliasing occurs. You remove aliasing by increasing your sampling frequency, or removing those high frequency components before sampling. (Or you sample above your nyquist frequency, remove high frequency components, and then resample, which is SSAA). Anti-aliasing (in general) is an analytically rigorous solution to a well-understood problem. This is not the description of a 'hack'. (The things people do to fake anti-aliasing because the real thing is too expensive, on the other hand...)