Everyone in this thread is saying that this comes as no surprise, and that is certainly true. But the thing is, a lot of management types do know this already but they simply don’t care for two reasons:
They care more about leverage/control over employees than they do about actual good work being done. You cannot understate at all how important employee control can be for managers and how seriously they’re willing to destroy their own business to keep this kind of power.
RTO is basically a layoff program. As much as I love working remotely, it’s very important to keep in mind that remote workers are the first ones that will get laid off when the business wants to cut back - purely because of how easy it is to do. They can just mandate RTO without actually calling it a layoff and know many workers will outright quit, and the business won’t have to comply with whatever local regulations are in place around layoffs. Still, this shouldn’t sound like comfort for employees that do work in the office - there’s a good chance that once RTO is in place, another round of layoffs will strike when the company doesn’t meet its cut targets. So any time a business announces return to office, it means that there’s a good chance that layoffs will follow too.
tl;dr: Managers knew this would happen all along too - it was just a trade they were very willing to make.
Sure, fair points. We should distinguish good and bad managers here before we get too specific. The bad managers will do whatever they’re told to do by upper management. Upper management just says “cut down to this number” and they do it because they only care about their own incentives and don’t care about the consequences. The good managers will probably realize the downsides of these decisions and will try their best to blunt the impact of these decisions. But in the end, they still have to report to higher levels of management, so there’s little that they can ultimately do. So they’re probably going to end up doing the same thing anyway.
This is why management is such a hard position, especially in the lower levels. You’re basically at the end of the chain and usually have little power to get what you want. At the same time, you still have to make lots of different groups happy - upper management, your workers and whoever you’re delivering your product for. All the things that you listed are things that I’m sure they would like to have, but probably end up having to get sacrificed anyway. If there’s only one group of people that you’re going to please, chances are that it’s going to be the people you report to.
Agreed. It’s really hard to understate how ineffective “voting with your wallet” can be. The fact is simply that nobody honestly cares. Even if you get 100 people to boycott a company, would 100 out of millions of consumers really make a difference? Of course not.
And of course, you always have cases like this where everybody does it. Same thing goes for TVs - if everyone spies on you, the only real solution is to not have a TV. Yes, I know there are exceptions here and there, but bad practices like these force buyers into making compromises that they shouldn’t have to. Capitalism should be predicated on companies offering the best product to earn their income. It should not be about companies having the least bad product and trying every terrible thing that they can get away with.
(Of course, we all know that capitalism is a farce.)
Honest question here: what would stop me from starting a video, then pausing it and walking away from my computer for several hours so youtube plays ads to no one?
Now repeat but with several tabs.
And bonus points if the videos simply happen to be mine and I were to enable monetization on them.
No one has said Ocaml yet, so I will. It’s not a perfect language, but it has a lot of cool ideas and concepts. It’s a functional language, but allows you to write imperative code when you want to. Algebraic data types and type matching are built natively into the language and work very nicely. It’s type inference capabilities are very powerful (though that can backfire at times), and the |> operator is really, really fun to use. It also has very powerful module/functor capabilities, though they go a bit over my head since I haven’t had a chance to play with them. Also, Opam is a very powerful package manager and it’s pretty easy to wrap/bind external libraries with it.
I’d love to see some improvements to the language - the syntax is a bit confusing and ugly at times (but this unfortunately can’t be fixed without breaking the language of course) - but overall I think I’d have a lot more fun programming in Ocaml than what I do in my day job.
Agreed on all points. I think some of the issues that you’re facing are things that would be resolved if Ocaml were more popular. But some others would be harder to fix without making breaking changes to the language as I mentioned earlier. If I had to put it as succinctly as possible, I’d say that the language just needs a lot more polish which would probably happen if it were more mainstream. But not all languages have to be mainstream, and maybe Ocaml’s purpose in the world is, as you put it, to inspire other languages. It is definitely extremely good at that!
Agreed. Objects are nice and a great way to program. Composition is great. Traits/interfaces are great. Namespaces are great. Objects are a really nice way to reap the benefits of principles like these.
But then there are aspects of OOP that absolutely suck, like inheritance. I hate inheritance. The rules get very confusing very quickly. For example, try understanding overriding of methods. Do I need to call the superclass method or not? If not, does it get called automatically? If so, in what order? How do these rules change for the constructor? Now repeat this exercise for every OOP language you use and try not to mix them up… Java, C++, Python, etc.
Fortunately, it feels like we rely on inheritance less and less these days. As an example, I really like how Java allows you to implement Runnable these days. Before, if you wanted to run a thread, you needed a separate object that inherited Thread. And what if that object needs to inherit from another one too? Things would get out of hand quickly. (This is a very old example, but with lambdas and other new features, things are getting even better now.)
Anyway, long story short, I think OOP is a complicated way to achieve good principles, and there are simpler ways to achieve those principles than a full OOP implementation.
And ofc, Microsoft is well aware and is not interested in letting that happen.
This is true, but there are only so many times that they can pull off what they did in Munich. If enough cities keep trying at this, there’s no way they’re going to be able to hold the floodgates back forever.
I’m usually a pessimist, but stories like this actually do get my hopes up
Those documentaries are great findings (and really really interesting). I would highly suggest posting them to the channel (or I would be happy to if you don’t mind)
Agreed, Linux is quite popular in academia, particularly in any technical field. A lot of scientific software has to run on Linux because of supercomputers, and especially a lot of open source software is Linux only. So a lot of students run Linux for convenience, and a lot of computer labs run Linux as well. Of course, there’s also the fact that lots of people just think Linux is better than the alternatives, and they’re more likely to try new things when they’re at a university student’s age.
So I feel like that would probably be a significant contribution to the 2% that’s being reported
“They have to get people back to work,” Premier Doug Ford said during a press conference on Thursday in Ottawa, standing next to Mayor Mark Sutcliffe....
Not only that, what about the downtowns where people actually live? This is basically just picking winners here, saying those downtowns don’t matter, but the ones in major cities do. Pretty shameless exhibition of picking winners and losers here…
The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.
Even without the DMA, the EU and US have very different judicial systems. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t really understand the specifics, but if I had to describe it in a very hand-wavy fashion from my anecdotal, non-scientific experiences, US courts are more likely to favor preserving individual/personal freedoms over the common public good, and vice versa in the European system.
There’s room for both in my opinion. Keyboards are good for accuracy. Touchscreens are good for custom inputs and slightly faster to type on. In an ideal world, we’d have both.
To be frank, I find touchscreens so abhorrently useless that I just use my phone less than I’d like to - for example, I’m much more likely to just flat out ignore messages because of how tedious input is on phones. I don’t know if a keyboard would make a huge difference for me since I think mobile devices are garbage in more ways than one, but the lack of a keyboard is by far the biggest issue.
I installed NetGuard about a month ago and blocked all internet to apps, unless they’re on a whitelist. No notifications from this particular system app (that can’t be disabled) until recently when it started making internet connection requests to google servers. Does anyone know when this became a thing?...
All your points are sound. The issue that I have with this is that remote disable functionality is not necessary to achieve any of these aims. Before they were connected to the internet, people were still able to rent/lease autos and the world managed to survive just fine. There were other ways for lenders to get remunerated for breaking lease terms - they could issue an additional charge, get a court order for repossession, etc. Remote disable was never needed or warranted.
So let’s start by considering the due process here. Before, there was some sort of process involved in the repossession act. With remote disable however, the lender can act as judge, jury and executioner so to speak - that party can unilaterally disable the device with no oversight. And if the lender is in the wrong, there is likely no recourse. Another potential issue here is that the lender can change the terms at any time - it can arbitrarily decide that it doesn’t like what you’re doing with the device, decide you’re in breach, and hit that remote kill switch. A lot of these things could technically happen before too, but the barriers have been dramatically lowered now.
On top of this, there are great privacy concerns as well. What kinds of additional information does the lender have? What right do they have to things like our location, our habits, when we use it, and all of the other personal details that they can infer from programs like this?
There are probably lots of other issues here, but another part of the problem is that we can’t even start to imagine what kinds of nefarious behaviors they can execute with this new information and power. We are well into the age where our devices are becoming our enemies instead of our advocates. I shudder to think what the world would look like 20 years from now if this kind of behavior isn’t stopped.
Of course! I hope you didn’t read my comment as hostile. I read yours as sort of a devil’s advocate type of argument and was just trying to point out the logical flaws in it. I’m glad that you didn’t hesitate to voice a contrary opinion. The points that you raise are interesting… and it’s always good to consider both sides of the argument, even because it just helps us hone our own arguments. You could certainly argue that this is just another enforcement mechanism. It’s just that it comes with a lot of unintended consequences, which most people will overlook, and they’ll inevitably be used in ways that we didn’t anticipate, long after the fact that these kinds of mechanisms become commonplace.
Regarding the reduced cost of lending: sure, in theory they could lower the prices. In practicality, will it? Any time we see cost-reducing developments, it usually ends up resulting in higher profits for the vendors moreso than better competition and lower prices for consumers. Look at how car manufacturers are just letting electric vehicles sit in their lots because they refuse to accept what buyers are willing to pay. The corporate types really, really hate to lower prices on anything for any reason. So I would be surprised to see something like that happen, even though it’s still theoretically possible…
Right - they say that they’re just going to use it to defend their “property rights”. In practice, they’re going to use it for a whole lot more than just that…
He’s right. These people are so fantastically wealthy, but it’s not enough. They still need more, more more. And meanwhile, actual people, real human beings are going hungry, without heat, without a home. Not only do laid off employees suffer, but their families and their children too. All so that millionaires can continue promoting themselves to being billionaires and even more.
I don’t know of anything realistically that can be done about it (in the short term at least). But it just needs to be shouted louder and louder until there’s enough public sentiment that real change can start to happen. Greed needs to be shamed louder and louder. We know all the institutional power that the wealthiest people in the world have to suppress economic equality in every country and throughout the globe, but if our voices grow loud enough, eventually it will be too loud to ignore.
Excessive wealth and greed is a mark of shame. Let’s just keep repeating it and hopefully we’ll eventually have enough power to reverse it.
Ordered back to the office, top tech talent left instead, study finds (www.washingtonpost.com)
Without paywall: archive.ph/0KvTq
What open-source software would you like more people to know about?
How to opt out of the privacy nightmare that comes with new Hondas (sherwood.news)
YouTube could roll out ads while videos are paused after “strong traction” in experiment - Dexerto (www.dexerto.com)
Google fires more workers after CEO says workplace isn’t for politics (wapo.st)
deleted_by_author
Supreme leader mad (sh.itjust.works)
A large state corporation in Brazil is currently trialing 800 Linux PCs. If successful, it will deploy and replace 22k Windows installs, comparable to the migration happening in Germany. (www.reddit.com)
5 reasons why desktop Linux is finally growing in popularity (www.zdnet.com)
backdoor in upstream xz/liblzma leading to ssh server compromise (www.openwall.com)
Doug Ford calls on federal workers in Ottawa to return to office (www.cbc.ca)
“They have to get people back to work,” Premier Doug Ford said during a press conference on Thursday in Ottawa, standing next to Mayor Mark Sutcliffe....
What is the best hip hop lyric of all time?
US sues Apple for illegal monopoly over smartphones (www.theverge.com)
The US Department of Justice and 16 state and district attorneys general accused Apple of operating an illegal monopoly in the smartphone market in a new antitrust lawsuit. The DOJ and states are accusing Apple of driving up prices for consumers and developers at the expense of making users more reliant on its iPhones.
Google Allows Creditors to Brick Your Phone (lemmy.world)
I installed NetGuard about a month ago and blocked all internet to apps, unless they’re on a whitelist. No notifications from this particular system app (that can’t be disabled) until recently when it started making internet connection requests to google servers. Does anyone know when this became a thing?...
Dwarf Fortress creator blasts execs behind brutal industry layoffs: 'I think they're horrible… greedy, greedy people' (www.pcgamer.com)
Elder scrolls (slrpnk.net)
In b4 someone tells me 6 isn’t out yet