The press freedom index places Burkina Faso, a country that bans journalists from visiting displacement camps, higher than the US, so I'm a little skeptical of its findings
> The press freedom index places Burkina Faso, a country that bans journalists from visiting displacement camps, higher than the US
The places the US does not let journalists access are countless. A prominent example are most of the US' border facilities, the detention-like migrant "housing" facilities among them.[1]
So what you brought up can clearly not be a differentiator between those countries in terms of such an index.
To be fair to Burkina Faso I should point out that their 'displacement camps' are a case of taking care of people in need: refugees of war. Meanwhile the US facilities are just locking people up before sending them home.
As far as I can tell, yes. There are rules regarding access that were written in 2010. The most recent info I found on the matter (during my admittedly limited internet searches) are in relation to new regulations that were introduced and then removed in August, 2019:
If you're aware of more recent information, do share. As I said, this is just the results from a cursory search and may not reflect the current situation.
The smaller countries who don't want to be beholden to either the US or China's fiscal policy. We seem to be building up a second cold war, and I imagine for many countries being able to back your economy with a currency that isn't controlled by either of the two major players is tempting. China may well end up regretting discouraging its miners from holding the majority stake, given the Sino power that could project. This is all very heavily speculative, though, I'm just spitballing an interesting potential chain of events
I think if Bitcoin price turns around and keeps increasing (big if), we are going to see a large scale game theory at play. The countries that have opted in will be in a much better place so that would create a race to get in.
The next 5-10 years will be very interesting times to live through, especially after record USD printing.
These seven countries have a lot of sway, but even if it's only these countries that implement it it will likely affect a number of corporations. There are benefits to being legally located in stable modern economies, so this at the very least minimizes shopping around for the lowest tax rate among them.
Inertia, perhaps. We certainly have been seeing reports of digital nomads growing over the last decade, but major shocks can be useful in speeding up transitions. Likely very few CEOs previously imagined how robust the remote work infrastructure had become, and certainly didn't have obvious incentive to implement all the tools until now.
There are also plenty of people who like their coworkers and enjoy spending time with them each day. I don't think everybody finds work to be an unfulfilling drain on their leisure time
> There are also plenty of people who like their coworkers and enjoy spending time with them each day.
Not saying you are wrong, but
The vast majority of people first get jobs to earn money THEN meet the coworkers AND having no other option besides interacting with coworkers during work hours, will try to get along
I think that line of thinking will be quickly replaced. Better culture, free food, people, environment, etc. all mattered when employees were expected to spend 8 hours a day at work (and often longer). If more companies allow working from home, then that trumps a lot of the other perks because employees can make their own perks such as more flexible hours, shorter/no commute, living where they want to instead of being forced to live close to the office, etc.
Assuming you mean Google and Facebook et al for "ad companies" then I guess it's the very high compensation and nice work environment as well as the chance to work on super cool tech with really smart people if you're lucky or sufficiently motivated?
Of course most folks there probably work on super uncool tech with very average people, but those are also getting paid a whole lot of money and can enjoy the nice work environment, etc.
Morality, even if it were universal, is not a prime motivator in career choices for most people.
Yes, I very much enjoy my co-workers. Several nights a week I find myself lying in bed and notice I'm grinning while thinking about some jokes or fun we've had together. We all work 100% remote.
Right?! My company was mostly remote pre-pandemic, and we've gotten more remote friendly during the last year. We share memes, conversation, movie reviews, etc. all over Slack/Zoom/Signal/etc. I'll just get random weird texts from one of my co-workers.
It helps that a lot of us have worked together through multiple companies, but even the ones that haven't... I've honestly never met my manager in person just due to timing issues and the pandemic. Literally all of our interaction has been online and we have a really good relationship.
As long as I have the choice, I will never go back to an office on a regular basis. WFH works for me.
We have channels on slack for non work stuff and we post memes, news, etc. We also have DM groups and just chat. We’ve got more people on the meme channels outside of the team. It’s a nice group. I even play games with some on my switch.
I’ve only been to the company 3 times split between 2 locations.
I’m looking to change teams soon. So advancement opportunities are there. Never met in person the manager, so it’s not that.
Based on my experience, I believe it depends on the company, team culture and the people. By team culture I mean more how the team is run. Some are run very competitive others more collaborative.
Off topic, but how does switching jobs along with your coworkers work? Do you guys all switch around the same time or is it more of a coincidence? Was it luck that you all passed the interview or was it more of a package deal where your current company wanted to hire you all together (ie, all or nothing)?
The way it happened at my company was that there was a layoff so a few people from the department were laid off at the same time, and one guy who used to be CTO (there was a merger) left and formed a new company and shortly hired those people.
Then what started happening over the next couple of years is they'd reach out to other people in our department one or two at a time and offer them jobs, like one would put in notice this month, then a couple months later another, then a few months later a couple more, etc.
I think currently they have about 12-15 employees at that company that all used to work in my department. They have more former employees than this department does at this point.
They reached out to me as well, but at the time they were looking for someone with less experience (I would have had to take a pay cut and a lower job title), otherwise they might have gotten me also. According to a former coworker who works there it's definitely a lot more laid back of a job.
I should note they didn't get everyone who left here. I know a couple of the more ambitious people in the department met with them but decided against it, probably due to not offering enough, and left for another opportunity later.
Yes, because I'm not a sociopath. :P I'm well aware some people like to work from home.
If you are one of those people you can keep working from home. All I'm asking is for the respect that I am not one of those people - and for my employer to please give me the option to go in. Thanks.
> I don't think everybody finds work to be an unfulfilling drain on their leisure time
Well said. WFH doesn't fix a bad job or a draining company culture. If your job is miserable and you can't stand your coworkers then you need to find another job, remote or not.
I have fantastic colleagues and I'd still rather work remote. My commute easily gets up to 10 hours / week on a miserable public transit system. I prefer to spend that extra 10 hours with my family, friends, and neighbors, or on household chores, or hobbies, or just relaxing. I certainly understand that some people prefer the buzz of the office and I support people working in the environment that best suits their needs and personalities.
That said, having worked with an effective team in a hybrid environment (even before the pandemic) the idea of companies forcing people back into the office mostly reads as a lack of trust in the people they've hired. To me, that indicates a different set of problems.
I’m also seeing a lot of sunk cost thinking on the part of management, and have seen a few cringe worthy “remember how great the office was?” stuff from execs.
I think when you’re a C level, the size and appeal of the office gets melded into your ego, and you can’t get the same boost from people working from home.
You can use a 15 minute break to be with family if you WFH. You can't use a 15 minute break to be with your family and complete a >15 minute round trip.
If you believe being in the office is required, fine, but if that's your criteria for what a "very high dedication" employee is then you'll need to pay more remuneration(or offer other perks) than a business that requires the same skill set and dedication without requiring the employees to be in the office.
If you work from home, you can spend all that time you would have spent commuting finding friends instead. Go to bars, find common hobbies/interests, join a rock climbing gym..
Not everyone who prefers to WFH finds "work to be an unfulfilling drain on their leisure time", they just prefer to WFH for a myriad of reasons. (I like spending more time with my child, oof).
If you aren't a middle manager and the employee is productive, then honestly why do you have an opinion?
Why are so many people getting divorced today? It’s because most of us don’t have extended families anymore. It used to be that when a man and a woman got married, the bride got a lot more people to talk to about everything. The groom got a lot more pals to tell dumb jokes to.
A few Americans, but very few, still have extended families. The Navahos. The Kennedys.
But most of us, if we get married nowadays, are just one more person for the other person. The groom gets one more pal, but it’s a woman. The woman gets one more person to talk to about everything, but it’s a man.
When a couple has an argument, they may think it’s about money or power or sex, or how to raise the kids, or whatever. What they’re really saying to each other, though, without realizing it, is this:
“You are not enough people!”
Preferring to spend time with friends and family is normal. It doesn't mean someone's coworkers are so toxic that regular interaction with them is an ordeal.
That very sentence has already suggested that your coworkers are not your friends (or else they'd be in the group of "friends and family" that you enjoy spending time with).
I think the very point of GP is that there are many people who do, in fact, develop friendships with their coworkers.
Why do they have to be? It is strange that there is some unspoken stipulation that they NEED to be to have a good working relationship. I can talk to my co-workers about why webpack sucks without wanting to cook with them.
I've certainly made many friends through work, but in my experience a for-profit workplace is an artificial environment with a lot of distorting incentives that make it more challenging to establish genuine friendship.
Fair enough. I believe there's some truth to this. I do think it's hard to separate between genuine friendships and transactional relationships that happen to be symbiotic while you're working together (but will rapidly deteriorate when you don't).
Sometimes I do wonder how much of this is the fault of skewed incentives of the workplace, versus just a paradox of human interaction. We think we're developing friendships by spending a lot of time with people, without realizing that time spent is of a transactional nature rather than furthering some connection. I spend a lot of time with coworkers, therefore a feel close to them. However, when asked, I realize I know almost nothing about them below the surface.
In any case, I can appreciate that forming friendships at work can be more challenging. But I do believe many people (including myself) have done this, and when it works it can be incredibly powerful and make work much more enjoyable.
If you want to hang out or work with your friends, nobody is stopping you. Maybe you should make mutual friends that don't need management to force them to be with you
To be clear, I'm not saying that employers should force employees to work in an office so they can spend time with their friends.
I'm simply saying that those people who have developed friendships with the people they work with likely don't view "going to work" as a painful, soul-sucking task they have to perform simply to achieve a paycheck.
It is, in fact, possible to simultaneously realize that you're in a transactional business relationship with an employer who is compensating you for services, and that those around you are also in that same relationship, and to use that as a common ground upon which a friendship can be built that makes the transactional relationship less painful.
I also believe there are some people who do, genuinely, enjoy the work they do. The general point I'm trying to make throughout this thread is that it'd be great if folks realized that there is a diversity to opinions about work much in the same way as there is diversity to every other thing in life and it's simply not a binary choice between "work is wonderful and I want to spend my life at the office" and "work is awful and I can't stand commuting, sharing space with coworkers, paying egregious rent, etc." As with most things in life, the reality is most people live somewhere in the middle of that gradient. Acknowledging that is helpful if we want to make progress towards optimal, inclusive solutions.
It sounds like his argument is that moderation isn't speech, and the posts on these sites, due to 230, aren't attributable to the would be moderators, therefore the tech companies don't have a right to claim that their first amendment rights have been breached. I'm unsure what the caselaw on site moderation looks like, so i have no idea if the assertion is correct
I legitimately think we should consider replacing all licenses with certifications and just require anyone who practices a profession without a certificate to be totally upfront with their clients about that
I strongly recommend using any unofficial Twitter app. My experience significantly improved once I stopped seeing "liked" tweets from people I follow. I don't even understand what the point of that is, if they wanted to share those with their followers they'd retweet it
