danielrpa

Ahem, I'm an older manager and one of the biggest proponents of remote in my company, and I know many 40+ managers who are big into remote too. So your theory is wrong. More than half of my team live on different states (and even countries at one point), so even if we were not working from home, they would not be in the same office as me "collaborating".

You probably just know a bunch of bad managers that gave you the impression this is age-related. Interestingly, and this is an anecdote, it's the younger managers who usually haven't yet sorted out the control problem and are less into remote work.

I said what I had to say, so did you. A comprehensive refutal and clarification of my points would be tedious.

Nonetheless, I'll address one of your points, the one of the involuntary experience: if your hosts are having you out of the goodness of their hearts because you're a refugee, you better do everything in your power to pay it back and play by their rules, not yours. You are not entitled to their welcome.

I'm a Latin American immigrant. When coming to the US, I decided to fully integrate myself in the culture: attain a high proficiency level in English, US history and culture, marry a native and raise my child in the local culture. I believe that if you are moving to a new country, you are deciding to an extent leave your old country behind and start a new journey helping build your adoptive country.

When looking at other Latin American immigrants, I tend to see a strong desire to do the same. Latin Americans often join the US armed forces, become patriotic and even conservative Americans. In particular with Cuban immigrants, there is hatred towards some of the original values (communist/revolutionary Cuba) and a strong embrace of the new world. While you can always find examples to the contrary, I believe that Latin American immigrants in the US have done a terrific job at integrating, perhaps because of our cultural and religious values being already somewhat compatible with the US.

This is not the same for all other immigrant cultures. I don't want to point fingers to not start flame wars. However, I've seen communities of different cultures refusing to mix with locals: they will not marry locals in general for religious and sometimes even racial reasons. For them, the US is just a convenient location with Costcos and Targets, but they often despise our cultural roots and don't even bother to learn the culture or language. Their children are of course better integrated, but their community still frowns upon departing their culture circle.

We Latin Americans still, of course, stay around our community and speak our native language with people sharing our cultural heritage. We still like "our" food. But when you talk to people in the community, they are complaining about how things are bad in Latin America and how much better they are in the US. In some other cultures, it's the opposite; they complain about how things are bad in the US, and how much better they were back home!

I bought and returned a Pocket Operator. One of the least musical, unfriendly instruments I've ever owned.

And imagine, you can buy an OP-1 or seven Volcas! You can get the 2 Circuits and still have money for 2 Behringers! I never found the sound from the OP-1 particularly interesting, and the instrument is more suitable for looking cool rather than making actual music.

I hope you are not referring to my comment, as I'm not advocating a fully nuclear grid. Instead, I'm advocating nuclear as the replacement for the energy needs that are beyond the reach of renewables in many places - for instance, nighttime consumption in areas without hydro potential.

For those against nuclear, feel free to give an example of a working large scale (supporting 5M+ people 24/7, all seasons) solar/wind deployment in continental Europe with zero dependence on fossil or nuclear.

We don't have proven "far cheaper" alternatives. It is irresponsible to advocate for a fully solar/wind grid if we don't have a single working large scale example that is able to sustain, let's say, a city with 5M people 24/7, all-season (examples including hydro and geothermal don't count as many places can't depend on these).

Don't get me wrong, I love solar and wind and I highly encourage continued investment and buildup so we need less of other forms of energy. However, ignoring nuclear is the same, in practice, as supporting a hybrid fossil/renewables future. If you are fine betting on technological developments such as megascale batteries or other energy storage approaches, you should also be fine betting on the less impressive, incremental improvements needed for reducing nuclear plant costs.

The future will involve many different energy sources, and nuclear fission has to be one of them until we discover a new major energy source (hopefully fusion).

There was no reason for the average user to switch from Facebook. Arguably, it was worse than Facebook due to poor UI: I could never make my wife understand the value of circles, it was simply not the way she thinks about her contacts.

How are they going to collaborate working from home? Will Sundar blame poor results on the smoke?

It's not preferable. The problem in this line of argumentation is that it highlights the problems of an imperfect system (a big western democracy) and then extends that to qualify the whole.

The US has so many problems, I agree, but what big democracy doesn't? Does the UK have problems? Yes. Does France? Yes. Does India? Yes. Because the US is so powerful, and has used this power for questionable purposes (as well as good purposes), people create a caricature of the country and ignore that we have things like constitutional protections, freedom of speech, mechanisms to sue the government and prevail.

Just to detail one of my examples above, freedom of speech. Many people will go and give examples of why the US has no true freedom of speech. Most of these people have never lived in a place which actually has no freedom of speech! For instance, I've bought many highly critical books of the US government, talked about them in public, visited libraries to read these books. In a less free country, this can, and often does get you arrested or killed, assuming that you were able to find the books to begin with, more often you won't even have access to any real criticism of the government.

I don't want any country storing my personal data. But if I'd pick between the US or China, AT LEAST there is a minimum of transparency and rule of law (and it's actually a lot more than "minimum", the real protections are significant) regarding how this data is used in the US.

Well according to some people on HN, it's all good and dandy. China is no worse than the US is the latest version of moral relativism we have to deal with. So if they have your data, it's all okay.

This is the genius plan by Sundar Pichai, who prefers to blame WFH than himself for Google's failures.

You mean like a human teacher?

This reminded me of one of my teachers who said that Cuba was a great place to live and the rest of Latin America should be more like them. She was essentially a communist who painted the old Soviet Union and communist countries in general as much better than the capitalist west.

It has become terrible. My best guess is that there is little else to do, and UX professionals keep changing things to justify their jobs. Nothing personal, maybe your job requires you, but we don't need a brand new UX every 3-4 years on every product. Incremental improvements, rounded edges, some smoother animation and better accessibility. But not changing everything, one gazillion new buttons and features.

We need simplicity and stability - the latter being the most important for user interfaces.

Yes, and irrespective of our opinions on each book... Reading the Bible lets you connect in some form with the majority of your electorate, while reading Kuhn does not.

Google is one company that has traditionally focused on light clients (Chromebooks) for its employees and now wants all developers to use cloud desktops. This is just a logical extension of this trend for Enterprises.

That would be okay with me if we could actually get to this level of granularity. Same thing for the streets used by public transportation? Subways alone won't work everywhere, so we'll need buses, and these will need highways too and pay for them in the fare.

I think most governments decided that it's not practical to get to this level of granularity, instead trying to get the cost closer to the user. For instance, having vehicle licensing and gas taxes paying for streets and highways in general based on usage statistics. For electric vehicles, governments are studying approaches like charging by mile driven using tracking devices (has its own problems).

But in my earlier proposal, getting the costs closer to the user would mean for trains and subways to pay for their own tracks and energy, and buses to pay for their streets and highways through licensing and gas (and for special bus lanes directly through tickets)

I'd never do that, I'm not against subways and buses at all. Let's then ensure that the city pays for that through city taxes (sales, property) and bus/subway tickets, instead of the Federal or State governments.

Let's do it and while at it also remove externalities for the alternative modes of transportation - including removing the subsides for trains/buses in American cities.

I like cars and don't want to ride trains or buses. I prefer the freedom and isolation of driving my own large car. I'm willing to spend less on other things than to let go of my car.

When cars are illegal, I'll stop driving, so if you want that to happen you should try writing to your representative.

For those who think that Disney is cancelling this because of the fights with DeSantis... LOL.

A corporation knows a lot better than that. Decisions are driven by profits, and profits alone, and neither Disney nor DeSantis would keep going too long in this game of chicken. Disney needs Florida and Florida badly wants Disney.

Florida is still a huge supporter of Disney's business despite the politics. Disney is simply following what every other major company is doing right now: cutting back expansion plans, reducing major expenses (such as building a campus and moving thousands of people there) as their stock is really nothing to write home about right now. AND using this as a convenient excuse for what they are doing due to economic, not political reasons.

If Disney could recoup the relocation investment in the next quarter, it would absolutely do it irrespective of the recent fighting.

UIs were developed in the pre-web world without tracking or analytics. If you clearly explain that the cookie is for improving the UI and the user doesn't want it, it's because they don't care about it as much as you do.

What a clueless article. Almost every new lasting technology in history has at one point labeled criminal or potentially destructive to mankind. From cassette and VHS tapes, to radio, computers and the Internet,everything at some point was considered for regulation or deemed irrelevant.

Humans learn by "theft". We learn language by observing word patterns created by others (books, speeches, TV shows) and correlating them to outcomes. While ChatGPT doesn't yet display human-like intelligence, it's clear to me that it is taking a step in the direction of how the human brain actually learns.

I paid 29K+tax for my brand new Mazda CX-5 Select (not the cheapest model) 3 months ago.

That's also how I feel about my 2023 Mazda CX-5. Made commuting lot less of a chore. And no touch screen so I can keep my eyes on the road.

We have the same discussion over and over. Let me summarize the comments: some people like working remote, others prefer hybrid and some love going to the office every day. Companies that force a single work style will necessarily lose workers.

The more interesting question, IMHO, is whether companies mandating a given work style will be more efficient than others that give people the choice. And among the ones mandating a style, whether one style in particular is more efficient in general.

Which company from the options below is more likely to beat their competitors in the long run due to higher efficiency, quality, time to market etc?

1) A company that can hire ANY 100 workers who will fully work from home. 2) A company that can hire ANY 100 workers who will fully work from the office. 3) A company that can hire ANY 100 workers and give them the choice.

Star Maker... A book so good, after reading it, I couldn't believe it was possible to write a book like that. Please do yourself a favor and give it a try, it's not that big. Arthur C Clarke and Stanislaw Lem cite it as an inspiration.

As an ex Hyundai owner, I prayed that someone would steal my car so I'd have an excuse to get rid of it!

Maybe they know almost nobody wants to steal their cars, so no need for anti theft tech :)

My wife's family is from Louisiana. I love visiting, the people are very warm and the food is great. But after 3 days I want to go back to Atlanta. Louisiana is a terrible place to live, unfortunately.

Quora is next... I don't have anything against it, but I see hardly a reason to go to Quora anymore.

The management team believes this is the case. They have a lot of information on the company and individual performance. Do you have any reason to believe they are wrong with this particular choice?