mshake2

I expect to see this paper in many lawsuits soon as evidence of copyright infringement.

Your tv example is severely outdated. Do you know how easy it is for anyone with an internet connection to watch hardcore pornography on demand for free? It's been that way since the internet went mainstream.

There is a strong correlation with a puritanical culture having much higher birth rates than a sexually permissive one, so I don't think that is the reason.

It wasn't a family business. The CEO fired the old HR and hired his wife to replace her. My department manager married the other dept manager. The finance head hired his wife when they expanded the department. With the exception of my dept manager, I guess it was just very lucky that these people's partners were "the best person for the job" out of the applicant pool.

How about the CEO and director of HR are married, and your department head is married to the head of a department that your team supports, and the heads of finance are married to each other. All in one company! Strange power dynamics everywhere in those nepotistic little fiefdoms.

I was groped by an gay (and well-liked) coworker at a company retreat. I told my boss a few weeks later at a 1-on-1 lunch and he just made a face and then awkwardly changed the subject. Most people are cowards and avoid unpopular actions at all costs so that they can keep their power. Virtue is all an act for power.

We need a transferable GPT, like how CNN models have been trained on basic shapes and patterns, and can then be fine-tuned to an application. A transferable GPT wouldn't know the entire internet's worth of knowledge, but it would know to predict generalized structures. Maybe those structures could have placeholders that could be filled with specific knowledge.

>As for restaurants, you are going into second and third order impacts.

Yes, that's what systemic change is, and you appear to be presuming (with your mocking jab about sweat pants, give me a break) that it's irrelevant to study second and third order effects of large social changes. That's not a very credible perspective to have.

The savings would be on office heating and cooling, not home heating and cooling. You're calculating the wrong thing.

Also, I thought of another thing you should factor in: restaurants. They're incredibly wasteful with food. With no office workers, many restaurants (especially around offices) have drastically fewer customers. You'll need to include the carbon savings from some percentage of the food that goes to waste.

Not to mention TCR just raised (last november) their monthly prices for the starter brand campaign from $0.75 to $2.00 and included a $4.00 setup fee (which was previously $0) for each starter brand. On top of that they added all kinds of additional registration paperwork for the law-abiding SMS sender. It's infuriating how this organization exists to extort legitimate businesses, and yet we still all receive massive amounts of spam.

I'm not threatening anything, these are actual human behaviors that your cost analysis has to take into account when you say things like WFH has no meaningful impact on emissions. Running HVAC on every office in the US + daily commutes has a big impact, one that would completely vanish if office workers WFH.

It seems you're also taking the "(in a EV!)" pedantically as a literal mandate. Nobody is saying "you must return to the office in an electric vehicle now" and I should be surprised that I have to spell that out. The messages are "return to the office" and "drive a climate-conscious vehicle" and people do the vast majority of their driving to and from work.

What? Tons of people leave their HVAC on when they're at work, so that it's comfortable when they return. Now they're at home using it instead.

How about the reduction in emissions for all of the office spaces for every office in the US?

>But working from home will not make the difference between apocalypse and paradise.

Ah, the old "it doesn't matter if we do X, so long as we do Y" where "X" keeps shifting to whatever the arguer wants it to be in that moment. In this case "X" is the 860,000 US office workers driving fossil fuel cars back and forth to work every day for their entire working life, which I was told was a bad thing, but now it actually doesn't really matter.

Yeah ok. Find a CEO who publicly says "return to the office in a gas-guzzling SUV" and I'll buy you an ice cream.

That's like saying making drugs illegal produces the correct incentives to stop the drug trade. Companies and consumers will break the law to bypass any artificial market inefficiency, and it will produce a thriving black market. Why would I pay $50 for a pack of hamburgers when I can get it for $10 from a black market butcher?

The point is that people are saying loudly that this is literally a matter of life and death, but we're not being told to continue stay home if our job can be done from home, we're being told to go back to the office (in a EV!). It's doublethink.

Massively increased WFH (triggered by the pandemic) has done more to improve carbon emissions from transportation than any electric vehicle movement will ever do. yet you don't see a hard line top-down push for more WFH, only resistance, why?

i'm tired of creating a disproportionate amount of value and reaping the same rewards and allowances as everyone else because anything more would be seen as unfair. no thanks. if the value i'm creating isn't directly correlated with my earnings, i'll go do something else.

I'm not disregarding it, I just think it's not represented accurately.

Would be useful if each poster also included their years of experience in the industry ;)

Good thing I didn't say that then

Sounds like somebody's job depends on convincing people there's a good reason he didn't build it first.

Or maybe you don't know how I feel and I can come to different conclusions that aren't a result of me "not giving a damn" about people. Not everyone who disagrees with you is evil.

>This is one of those worldviews that seems to be common among US-Americans, but sounds totally bizarre from an outside perspective. You say "If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them."

The beauty of America is you can do my suggestion (make your own startup, run it without firing people), but in other places where layoffs are illegal, you can't do the opposite suggestion (make your own startup, fire people). Let the best idea win! But you seem to be endorsing a world where you don't want the best idea to win, you want the state to enforce a particular idea that makes you feel good.

If you are free to run a company however you want within the bounds of the law, but only one type of company emerges, maybe there is a reason for that.

>Entrenched in-groups and institutions control access to the highest paid jobs. You need to become a part of those to be allowed to participate.

That's the same thing as being difficult to replace. You gain "access" by being perceived as difficult to replace. The more difficult you are to replace, the higher your access.

I don't think it's productive or wise to speculate on decisions that restrict the free association of people. Outside of narrow circumstances, an employer should not be legally required to employ someone any more than an employee should be legally required to work at the company.

>Is it necessary to fire them? That's the relevant question we should ask ourselves.

That's not the relevant question. The relevant questions are: were the layoffs illegal, and if they weren't, then why is it any of your business? If you don't want to live in that world, start your own startup, hire people, and never fire them. Nobody is stopping you.

It doesn't matter if it's a realistic metric for the amount of work done. It's demoralizing to her coworkers that actually work hard, and I would fire her based on that alone. But the fact that she was fired for reasons probably unrelated to her Tiktoks is just more evidence that probably wasn't adding a whole lot of value.