Klinky

Again, how is that a remote problem? Sounds like a leadership, communication & project management problem. Everyone being in an office doesn't magically solve those problems.

You direct hired or hired as contractors? Your HR platform handled global benefits and payroll with little to no added effort or expense? There were no additional legal regulations or compliance issues you had to consider?

I could see a nimble startup pivoting in a way that can make it work. I can also a see large businesses investing in overseas at scale. I don't see smaller or mid-size companies able to reap the same kind of benefits as easily, unless they were setup with it in mind from the start.

I agree on the latter, measure deliverables & people's contributions to the deliverables. Having paranoia that someone is working two jobs, so you need people in office or you need to install aggressive spyware is extreme.

>If you’re remote anyways, you won’t get the in person advantages so you might as well pay less.

You are still ignoring that a remote-in-country employee is different than a remote-out-of-country employee from a legal, HR & logistical perspective. Hiring someone in Kentucky is not the same lift as hiring someone in Poland or India. There's going to be extra expense and overhead to manage out-of-country employees & the logistics of operations between different countries. Many companies aren't setup to do this. You can't just look at the pay rate.

Additionally you can't just look at the pay rate of an in-office employee. In office requires a commitment to pay for the office, pay for the staff to manage the office, accept a reduced talent pool in some areas, and if you're in an area with a large talent pool, it's probably a high-cost-of-living area, so your rate will not just need to be "a little more", but "a lot more" to be competitive.

I agree that one should not deceive their employer. At the same time, if their employer does not notice a drop in productivity/performance from the employee, what's that say about that company's ability to actually measure employee performance?

I think a lot of companies have poor project management & employee performance measurements, so half the time, people only have half the picture or don't know what the heck people are supposed to be doing and if that's actually getting done. That only becomes more complicated when projects are abandoned and/or requirements shift every quarter.

>I can and have hired quality developers in EU, GB, and South America at heavily discounted rates because without an office, what’s the difference?

Great, you've confirmed remote work works and can produce high quality results without an office. You've failed to bring up the other challenges beyond timezone of hiring outside your country of incorporation, it's not just timezones that creates challenges, but even timezones and keeping global teams in sync has its overhead. If you're also going to hire globally, then it looks even more daft to have people go into an office to "collaborate" with people who are in bed on the other side of the world.

"Ability to sit in an office" should never be a bullet point on anyone's resume.

So in dysfunctional organizations force managers to keep poorly performing employees? This is somehow related to remote work how? Such a problem exists regardless of where the employee is working.

> They hire you to "perform duties for x hours a day", not "complete x tasks/x story points per sprint"

Then why hire salaried workers while tracking work via sprints?

>your velocity might be half or less what it could be if everyone ended up on-site.

This is assuming more work actually gets done in an office and that offices don't have their own set of distractions. People can also slack off in an office too, or become so distracted by others that their velocity suffers.

Measuring employee performance seems to be a continual struggle that has no relation to in-office vs remote workers. If you can't accurately measure success & value generation of remote workers, you probably also can't measure office worker's either. Just checking that someone is physically in their seat doesn't actually mean they're adding tangible value.

I don't think that's much of an endorsement of in-office collaboration if you need the power to go out to actually focus and get work done.

Serendipity is not a competent on-boarding or training strategy.

That would assume timezone, language, legal, cultural, governmental, and infrastructural differences don't exist between countries. Outsourcing outside your country of incorporation is a completely different challenge compared to remote work within your country of incorporation.

With the some of the new AMD Epyc CPUs having over 1GB of L3 cache, you could run a pretty full-featured Linux distro + app entirely in cache.

I think he's saying consumers need to actually hold sellers accountable for not following through. Though this is arguably one of the biggest reasons market capitalism often gives us poor results. People tolerate too much, are gullible, and/or have too little time/money to hold business accountable.

Sub and ship reactors are effectively sealed units that are not intended to be refueled on a regular basis. They can be serviced and refueled eventually, but it is a major overhaul to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refueling_and_overhaul

I agree, absolute freedom doesn't mean a desirable outcome will occur for individuals or society, or that freedom even remains the defacto standard. Free markets are often a vacuum waiting for a bully to fill & exploit.

> I never said "cannot contain facts". You're arguing with your strawman.

Then I don't get the point of your exercise which seemed focused on dismissing the power of film to portray historically accurate situations.

>Just about everyone arguing with me is trying to justify citing "The Jungle" as valid source all by itself. It's a work of fiction.

Speaking of strawmen...

That sounds like you're twisting the facts to fit a narrative. It's not clear a report was made by the first investigator.

I appreciate you citing the source, but that doesn't seem to back up the statement "he commissioned it and didn't like the result". He commissioned it, was advised of a potential conflict of interest, and dispatched a different set of investigators.

You cannot ask your dad or my dad or WW2 vets if it's an accurate depiction? People shouldn't assume fiction is fact, but that doesn't mean fiction cannot contain facts. I don't think anyone is saying you should cite fiction alone, but it can be used to spur interest in a topic.

Ford had some fire-related recalls recently[1]. Interestingly one of them was for hybrids, but not due to the battery. It was due to the heat shielding placement and that there was a decent chance of fire in the event of an engine failure from combustible fluids hitting hot parts.

Also I wouldn't say the car being in motion is a convenient time to have a fire. You're often not just standing there with a fire extinguisher handy.

1. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-i...

Can you then cite where you read he commissioned it and didn't like the result?

No it's not a misunderstanding of what you wrote.

> He said the documentary nailed what it was actually like. The hollywood version, nope.

Here you are comparing a fictional film with a documentary and dismissing the ability for fictional film to accurately portray the experience. This is not the case with all fictional films, and not all documentaries are actually superior or free from fiction/embellishment themselves.

Okay? Some WW2 veterans couldn't watch the Normandy invasion scene in Saving Private Ryan because it was too realistic. My dad said Apocalypse Now had its moments of accuracy regarding Vietnam.

I don't know why you keep repeating this incorrect notion that fiction cannot depict things in a historically accurate manner.

Some fiction is trash. Some documentaries are also very misleading and have their own narrative. One should reference multiple sources when possible.

Well the depiction of the conditions within meat packing plants in The Jungle were pretty historically accurate. It's certainly worth researching the impact it had. Comparatively & to your point, something like Atlas Shrugged is pretty much pure fantasy. So sure novels may not be the most concise vehicles for historical fact, but it really depends on the aims of the author.

If we want governmental mandates to regulate social media, let's do it. Make it law that crackpot ideas MUST be shared, and limit exactly how platforms can moderate their platform. The problem with this approach is that in the quest for freedom of speech, we'll have stripped freedom from owners of the platform to moderate their platform how they see fit.

The reality is that truly unfettered free speech & unmoderated discussions/debates devolves into all sorts of distractions from the primary goals of the platform (e.g. spam, hate speech, illegal activity, off-topic discussion). There must always be some level of moderation and censorship, even if that is at a basic level watching for spam bots & illegal activity. Typically that's not enough to ensure decorum, so you end up with additional community guidelines to set the tone for the platform.

My point here is that freedom of speech on online platforms is a mythical unicorn, that never existed, nor will it ever exist. It seems more like a wedge issue certain people like to bring up because they're unhappy with how a platform has acted towards them, and want to claim superiority by championing "free speech", even if they don't actually believe in it. For all the belly aching Musk did about Twitter, he is doing exactly the same things he complained about. That'd be fine, if he wasn't such a hypocrite about it & understood the ramifications and expectations of free speech, and the complexities of competent content moderation.

I'd also disagree that crackpot ideas are best debated in the open on social media. I think in a well moderated forum where people are held accountable, and expected to cite their sources yes. In the firehose that is social media where attention spans are limited, consumption is often on mobile devices which may hamper ability to do in-depth research, it leaves much to be desired as a place to find deeper truth easily. Also with puppet accounts, the moment you debunk one thread, ten more have popped up regurgitating the same talking points.

>No, my OP and this thread's link is about government intervention, which then lead to social media action.

I don't see a problem with private and public sector collaboration, it happens all the time. Not all communications between Twitter and the government resulted in Twitter taking action, and even when Twitter took action it does not mean they did so outside their own community guidelines.

>Whilst I do think social media platforms should have additional regulation once they are big enough to become the new public square, there's no need to go that far yet and I'm uncertain of the appropriate balance.

So which is it? You want regulation or you don't? Stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

>However when it comes to the government's own response, they should have higher bar for taking action due to the oppressive influence it can have backed by it's monopoly on force. And again I state that this should be serious scientific study as the minimum prerequisite for this bar.

No, governments are expected to lead and provide information to their citizens on urgent matters. In a situation like COVID you can't wait 12 - 24 months for comprehensive scientific meta-analysis studies to confirm things. It seems you want a very hands off approach during a national crisis. I assure you this would not go over well, and is just as reprehensible(e.g. lackadaisical responses to Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana or Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico), as an overly heavy handed approach(e.g. China welding people's doors shut).

Also my original reply was regarding your claim that it's not possible to disprove misinformation without serious scientific study. That statement in and of itself is misinformation. You do not need exhaustive proof to show an in-vitro study does not mean a drug is a cure for COVID, or to show confounding variables, or that there were zero cited sources for claims being made in a post.

>Just like you cannot ignore the horror of slipping into a tyrannical police state like China.

You also cannot ignore a million+ dead people, many of whom were likely duped by charlatans into believing something that eventually lead to their demise. As you note later, you're fine with this harm, it's the cost of "freedom", except you don't actually want a private company to do as it pleases it sounds like, yet you also seem to lack any tangible action items or regulations you want applied. It seems like you just want to put your hands in your pockets. I dunno?

Well if nothing else, allowing such posts to propagate and be reinforced has the side effect of legitimizing them. Tagging posts as misleading is certainly one strategy, but people also complain about that being censorship or a conspiracy against them as well. Also if the argument is we should be moderating less, not more, then you're just arguing to turn mainstream social media platforms into those less well-monitored corners of the internet. Let it stay there.

The ruling party wasn't on my team and was often a source of misinformation during the height of the COVID pandemic. If I got banned for saying Bill Gates conspiracies were bullshit, then it sounds like that social media platform wasn't receptive to what I was saying. Boo hoo. Are you suggesting you'd force social media platforms to carry all voices, no matter what they're saying? How would you achieve that? Would community & content quality guidelines become illegal?

The bar for censorship shouldn't be so high that you legitimize misinformation by giving it a bigger platform than it merits. Social media can be a good place for discussion & debate, but in times when there's a national crisis occurring & you have people continually posting about how to take off-label drugs causing shortages for people who actually need it & injury to those taking it incorrectly, you run into misinformation causing real tangible harm to people. You cannot just ignore that. It's not just a run-of-the-mill philosophical debate about misinformation & censorship. The stakes are much lower in our discussion here.

Com'on, someone linking to a poorly done study claiming it proves "drug x cures COVID" isn't misinformation? Someone posting about 5G or Bill Gates being the source of the infection isn't misinformation? Someone going on some racist tirade about Chinese people isn't misinformed hate speech? You think we should just allow every crackpot theory or idea until scientifically proven inaccurate? Plenty of people were trying to steer the conversation in specific directions with little regard for the scientific accuracy of what they were stating.

The housing market was significantly different 7 years ago[1]. I'll agree that if you bought in your 20s as a millennial, you're in a much better position. Impossible to replicate that today though.

1.https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ASPUS