Shortening the longer leg is much less invasive and probably preferred, but the discrepancy has to be caught very early. You need years of measurements to predict exactly how long each leg will be and when. If you have those, there’s a pretty small window when the long leg is exactly the right length to tell it to stop growing.

It may depend quite a bit on the pill. As an adult I can easily dry swallow things like ibuprofen. But I’m not sure about something like oral steroids.

I was prescribed them as a kid due to a particularly bad poison ivy reaction. I couldn’t swallow pills at the time, so after running through all the tricks to teach someone, we ended up grinding them up and sticking them in ice cream. It was something like 15 years before I could eat cookies and cream again without tasting steroids. Grinding them definitely exacerbated the problem, but I’m not sure how I’d fare if prescribed the same pills again.

That’s my understanding of the procedure as well. The other method requires more prep but is quite easy.

If they catch it early they can measure how fast each leg is growing at 6 month intervals (and other measurements). Then they can go in and tell the longer leg to stop.

That procedure can be close to painless. A month with a soft cast and crutches, another month with just crutches, and a third month with no physical activity.

I’d be very surprised if it was to become taller. I’d have to watch the clip again, but I only recall seeing the device stretching his pants on one leg.

I know they’ll do it to fix leg length discrepancies above a certain threshold, especially if the other procedure isn’t viable. I don’t know if there’s other medical reasons to consider it.

To follow the thread of tangentially related concepts:

The Ilizarov apparatus (caution NSFL). The leg is intentionally broken, then a terrifying cage encourages it to heal in a different size or shape.

I’m not sure how much it’s used now, but I was presented with it as patient as a potential option about 20 years ago. It was kind of a “please don’t pick this one it’s clearly worse” choice. Thankfully they’d done about a decade of prep work to enable me to pick the less extreme option.

The decision to use Adobe suite is more likely to be a company wide decision. Part of Adobe suite lock-in is also familiarity making things faster. By promoting others, that may help future generations avoid at least part of the problem.

Google services may be much more piecemeal. Even if the boss personally happens to think there’s a productivity benefit to using a given search engine, it would be unusual to block others.

Practicing what you preach is sometimes important, but I’m not sure how much it bears on these issues. A single company eschewing either won’t make a difference. Getting the public to slowly consider alternatives may.