This is a side point, but I get mildly infuriated when articles like this state "Some leaders say they insist on full-time in-person work because it boosts productivity, despite clear evidence that it does not." Oh? Clear evidence? I can't find any. Can you? There are 3 journal articles referenced in that sentence, none of which say anything about productivity. I poked around Google Scholar and find that productivity gain / loss is still unknown, and depends greatly on the work and the field. Do you have to use actual physical stuff in an office? Definitely lower productivity working from home. Do you work with a team that's all in the same office? Also a solid productivity loss. But if you don't work with anyone in your office and all your stuff is online? No probably no productivity loss (but I didn't find a specific reference there).

I've seen a ton of posts saying WFH is so clearly better for revenue and productivity, and it's more about the sunk cost of the office space rented or a boss wanting to lord over his employees. And yes, I like that narrative and it works well for me, but the actual research just isn't there and it bugs me that it's stated like a solid irrefutable fact. It's not! it's a gray area! it depends!

And they want to add micro transactions

My wife and I were hanging out in the living room, and my 5 year old came out and politely said "Mommy, Daddy, I just wanted you to know that nothing is wrong and you don't need to come into my room."

Or, hear me out, she's pretending to be under threat to justify more violence

The idea is that they'll be used to track pregnancy and hurt people in certain states. Chaos will help the situation.

"Your kid may already be..." is a pretty standard fear mongering start, right?

May I say on behalf of a lot of the US: wtf. Vote to end

I saw a lovely bumper sticker on a Tesla the other day "I bought this before we knew Elon was crazy"

Spam away. I've been on hiring committees, and sometimes we have tons of qualified applicants and a hard choice, sometimes we have none. If you spam you'll have a better chance of hitting a company when there's fewer people in their list. As long as you're somewhat qualified, at least; no reason to spam for jobs that are vastly outside of what you can do.

They do of course. If you're in battle ground states they matter a TON, and they matter for everyone in local elections.

Same with ads. Never could figure out why they did anything.

"Would you like to be stabbed or punched in the face? If you don't pick one we'll go for the stabbing."

I hate it, but please vote.

Articles like this are going to make people think they don't have to vote. Ffs

Left one is coherent, has to be written by someone else

Fantastic explanation

I mean, you hated it before, but you hate it now too

I'm very invested in this series

Yeah I remember the specific clock speed thing! I had a game that I loved on a friend's computer and didn't get to play it much. Some sort of space sim / combat game. Years later I had my own much more powerful machine and was hyped to check it out. Installed via dosbox or whatever, loaded it up, and it ran at fucking 10x speed! It took seconds to walk around a city and the combat was completely unplayable. So sad but also pretty funny. No idea why they attached the FPS directly to the hardware. If you want an easier game, just get a worse computer apparently.