DylanBohlender

There are dozens of us, dozens!

They absolutely sat on this and waited until a competitor announced something, so they could suck the air out of the room.

I think it's interesting to see an article like this every couple of weeks. The way I view it is that we're watching the five stages of grief (with regard to the "death of the office") play out in real time, at population scale.

At first it was denial - "everyone will be back in the office eventually!"

Then it was anger - "you will RTO or you will lose your job!"

Now it seems like we've finally hit bargaining - "you'll come in 3 days per week, wait, 2 days, wait, special exception for the last week of every month".

I wonder how long it goes on until we get to depression and acceptance?

This would require spacetime to be quantized (presumably at the Planck length or something smaller) though, yes?

I've always thought entanglement makes more intuitive sense on a graph substrate of some kind, where the "spooky action at a distance" is actually just an anomalous edge in the graph connecting two vertices which would otherwise be more distantly separated. This begs the question of how the edges in the graph came to be or whether they're modifiable at all though.

Different generations have different investment preferences, so the best hedges are going to be things Millennials want that Boomers do not typically own.

Baby boomer mass retirement. This will increase the selling of shares across the board, since boomers will need to liquidate their assets to finance their living expenses when they are no longer taking salaries.

"Passive investing" is a largely beaten-to-death turn of phrase because you can't truly be a passive investor in anything. Every "passive investing" focused fund has some degree of selection bias, because the index itself is arbitrarily declaring that it's only buying the "top 500" or whathaveyou. So you're "passively" investing in the top 500 companies, which means "actively" choosing not to invest in the rest.

You can go one level up from there and buy VTSAX if you want to buy everything and truly "passively" invest in US stocks, but again, you'd be "actively" choosing not to invest in international stocks then.

It's turtles all the way down.

So this is probably indicative of a scandal of some sort right?

If you have any more I’d be interested in giving it a shot!

Whoa, that is crazy!

TL;DR for folks is that they left a lot of debug information in the build. The C code was compiled with no optimizations (and included debugging symbols), and GOAL uses a string-based table for global functions/variables/types, so they're starting with all those for free. Plus they don't think the GOAL compiler did too much tricky-to-undo optimization either.

If your "shields" went down because you had a negative workplace experience, but then you found out that you could double your salary once you started looking, I think it's totally fair to consider both the toxic culture and the compensation your "why" factors.

It's easy to use something like compensation or new challenges as a post-hoc rationalization for making a move too, even when the real reason you started looking is perhaps different and requires some introspection. As an example, you might not start looking because you want more money, but it's fairly socially acceptable to say "I left because I was made an offer I can't refuse" as a justification when you do actually leave.

This depends on broader society accepting that COVID is endemic though, and the cessation of all sorts of regulations. I don't doubt it will happen eventually, but I'm not sure if another year is enough time. There has to be some sort of common knowledge catalyst that changes the general approach; as long as events are still being cancelled due to COVID cases, we're not out of the woods and "living with the disease" quite yet.

Additionally, I think "undoing" the remote workforce transition is going to be nigh impossible for many companies. How do you get your employees back to the office? You probably tell them their employment is contingent on being in the office; that's the only leverage you really have as an employer. Many people have moved since the onset of the pandemic, and with the labor market as tight as it is, few companies are going to be able to stomach laying off employees who moved away and don't want to move somewhere near a physical office location.

So companies have a Hobson's choice: declare an "on-site" culture and axe all the people who no longer wish to be on-site (with no guarantee that you'll be able to hire replacements in a timely manner), or declare a "hybrid" culture and allow people to opt into coming into the office instead of having it mandated (with no guarantee that people will actually show up to the office and make your real estate expenses worthwhile).

I think a lot of companies are going to choose option #2 now, and a lot of those who choose #2 are going to reevaluate that gargantuan office lease expense in a few years' time when comparing the cost with the actual utilization of the space. I think a not-insignificant portion of the option #2 companies will end up being "full remote" companies as a result, it'll just take them a few years to get there. I think the option #1 companies will probably be fine if they're in cities where there's enough talent, but their long-term success is kind of a toss-up in my opinion. It truly depends on whether the social benefits of in-person interaction gives them a competitive advantage versus world-spanning remote companies who can be more selective with their talent.

Judging by the historic job changing trends in the last few months, I think your suggestion that "through quitting everyone reorganizes themselves" is already happening.

The only question that remains to be answered is whether remote or in-office companies have structural advantages over the other type, and it will probably take a decade or so before there's enough data to conclusively call it.