bleah1000

That case could still be appealed and overruled. And then it could go to the Supreme Court, which would likely take years to resolve. Better to be safe than sorry, rather than hope that the case will stand.

It also doesn't fix the problem where a number of contractors sue you even if they might be wrong. It could very easily be a class action lawsuit like the one that cost Microsoft a lot of money. They could use those rules as a start and then throw a few other things together such that Google thinks it might have a problem in court and wants to settle rather than risk getting sued by every single contractor.

I can guarantee you this made more people adverse to the cause than for it. They did everything wrong, and many of the people who might have had a chance at trying to change things are out of Google and will not be able to do anything.

It's also likely that people who saw this might now not want to be involved at all for fear of losing their job.

This action likely did nothing but make it less likely that anything will change, and been the absolute worst way to attempt to persuade people.

But that assumes that Google would settle. Without that happening, you are looking at years before getting a result, thousands of dollars of attorney fees and a high likelihood that if they lost they would appeal.

This might be more of an emotional lawsuit than a logical one.

I see this all of the time, but without any evidence. Even your edit says they get a "butts in seat" tax break. But how much is that? I can very easily see the savings of remote employees being way higher than this tax break. You might need to spend a bit more on IT and maybe on equipment. Then again you save on cleaning (not needed as often), garbage, electricity and anything else related to maintenance. Maybe it's slightly more expensive, or slightly less expensive. I've never seen anyone break the numbers down before making this claim. It feels like an appeal to emotion, those bad companies only care about money. Even if that's true, this argument doesn't prove it's true in this case.

And this all assumes long term leases or you own the building. It's possible to pay to get out of leases some time, and you can sell the building if you think it's going to cost millions to keep owning it.

Also, we are seeing lots of smaller businesses also requiring people to come back to the office. If they are getting some huge tax break for a 100 person company, how much is that? I'm happy if I'm wrong, and this is some huge tax break that saves companies millions of dollars, but I think it's fair to ask for evidence that this really saves the money people claim it saves.

I think there are other dumb reasons people are being called back, it just doesn't feel like this is one of the reasons.

While most of this comment is true, there are lots of youtubers that can make it full-time without getting millions of subscribers. The key is that you can't rely on adsense, you need to get as many different ways of getting income as possible (patreon, sponsors, merch, etc).

From my observation, it seems an active base of around 200,000 subscribers seems to be where you can do it full-time. I've even seen people with about 100,000 subscribers go full-time.

The trick is that you can't just be making videos, you have to take on a lot of the business parts too. If you just want to make videos and nothing else, then you would probably need hundreds of thousands of views per video to make a living.

I mean, if they went after someone civilly, Twitter doesn't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, only that there is a 51% chance it happened.

So proving that someone downloaded all of the source code right before the leak would be pretty strong circumstantial evidence. It's not impossible to prove it just because you don't have a smoking gun.

What references do you have for this? As I understand it, any quotas are also illegal, and this would be a quota.

I think you might be confusing affirmative action programs with whatever might be happening at this hypothetical corporation.

Adn AA programs are going up before the Supreme Court, so could be ruled illegal within the next year.

The problem is with all of these new devices using AI related features. They all seem to decide that it's a good idea to use contractors to "verify" or "categorize" the pictures. There is always a leak because they have to rely on the contractor's security protocols to make sure that these pictures don't get out. And, surprisingly, contractors might not have the best security, and it doesn't seem like the companies have any incentive to verify the security.

It's kind of sad to see so many people just take this story at face value. Is it really 1am? I could certainly believe it, but some random picture doesn't make it true. Also, even it is 1am, it's possible that work ended hours ago, and that some people are staying late to talk to Musk. Who knows, but to assume that everyone is being forced to stay, maybe, maybe not. I guess I'd like a little evidence.

The number of people saying all of these completely unsubstantiated things about Twitter, and everyone believing them without any questions is weird.

In addition, how could this person know if mostly H1-B workers are present. I certainly can't tell who is and isn't on a H1-B. Or is it because the bulk of the people are not white that this person assumed they were? That seems like an immensely racist assumption.

PIPs require a tremendous amount of effort and work. It also doesn't guarantee that the person would be fired. There are many times where the employee might do just enough to get off the PIP, but still be a really low performer.

It also sucks for the employee, a PIP is really stressful not knowing what will happen next, will you get fired, should you start looking for a new job.

In addition, the PIP can take months to get to the finish. Maybe even six months in some cases.

A layoff takes way less time, but it does suck for the employee. I don't know which is worse. But if you have a good employer, you still might be able to transfer to another part of the company. Being on a PIP usually means your only choice is looking outside the company for a new job.

Layoffs always hit good and low performers, there is no way it can't. But if a company wants to get rid of a number of low performers at the same time, PIPs are not the way to go.

This isn't strictly true. I do think they are going to lose some number of the highest performers because they have options and they will realize they can go somewhere else.

However, there are still people who are bad at their job and are not good enough at politics/networking to survive a layoff/firing. And there are a set of people who are not liked by an incompetent manager and will also probably be managed out who do not deserve it and are good workers.

So you lose some at the top, some at the bottom, and some in the middle. The issue for Meta, will these actions be able to get rid of enough of the unproductive people to be worth it?

The other issue: morale always goes down after these kinds of things. So I think there is a good chance that overall productivity will go down as people do enough not to be marked for firing, but are not motivated to go above and beyond.

I personally think that Mark Zucherberg doesn't have the charisma to deliver this message in a way that doesn't actually cause harm to the company. But time will tell.

The problem is that right now everyone is still looking to switch jobs.

If you assume that recessions bring out some really talented engineers looking for jobs, that's not happening yet. A good company strategy would be to stop or slow down hiring, wait for the recession to start in full swing, then restart hiring when the good talent is on the market. At the same time, you could use it to re-evaluate projects. If you've ever worked at a big company, I'm sure you can think of a few projects that should be killed because they are a waste of resources. This gives a big company a chance to remove some poor performing employees. Unfortunately, this will also get rid of good employees too, because of politics and bad managers.

This can be bad for the employees because you aren't sure if your project is going to be cancelled. You are less likely to look at new jobs, so if your current job is really bad you are stuck. This also puts downward pressure on salaries.

I don't know if this is the ethical thing to do, but I think it makes business sense.

I don't know if the garbage can is good, but I found the last picture with the new garbage can in the foreground and a ton of garbage behind the can on the ground funny.

This article is not very good, because it doesn't say what they are trying to do with the garbage cans. Is it making them harder to be damaged? To make it so people use the cans instead of throwing the garbage on the ground? To make it easy to service?

I would guess, the primary purpose is so they aren't damaged, but who knows.

To be fair, you've fallen into the same trap. One person says they don't have a problem, you believe them and start saying the first statement must be misinformation.

It's possible that both people are correct and the circumstances that cause the battery to drain require being connected to a AirTag, not just near any old AirTag. Or there are other circumstances that cause the battery to drain.

How would you enforce this? In the US this is completely illegal.

In addition, you would have to ask extremely invasive questions of everyone. So is your proposal that you require that your company ask for the detailed ethnicity of everyone? What happens when people refuse, do you just not allow them to interview or manage?

What about people who were born in the US, do you assume that if they are of Japanese descent they can't interview someone of Chinese descent?