loudin

Exactly. This proposal is absolutely soul-crushing for most people. Having extended daylight hours when people are actually awake in the evening is critical for positive mental health.

There's so many issues with large companies demanding people to return to the office, so it's at least somewhat refreshing to hear "do it because I said so", but this just isn't going to work in the long run. The toothpaste can't be put back into the tube. And this is because anyone who worked in-person at the office of a large tech company knows it's markedly worse.

For meetings, the process typically was: 1. Try to book a meeting room for a group large enough, succeed about 80% of the time and scramble at the last minute other times. 2. Wait for someone to finish up their call. If someone super senior was in the room, my meeting was guaranteed to start whenever they felt like ending their meeting, which would be 5-10 minutes late. 3. Inevitably dial into a video conference because at least one member of the team is working in a different office, so not even everyone was in person anyway 4. Run out of time at the end and having to dash to my next meeting room late.

And this doesn't even account for the fact that getting quality heads-down time in an open office floor plan was nearly impossible.

Just take the good with the bad. Make in-person meetings mandatory for important events that require in-person collaboration like design sprints, brainstorming, launches, etc.

They are not expressing themselves peacefully is the issue. They are calling for armed insurrection.

Absolutely incredible. I felt like I had a bird's eye view to humanity.

This study supports the notion that are all truly interconnected in ways that are beyond our conscious comprehension.

It's an important reminder we do not exist in a vacuum and our actions have an indirect impact on a large number of people.

I think this is a different beast. I personally loved shopping at Whole Foods because the food is high quality and their employees are treated well. These tenets are totally incompatible with Amazon's culture. Sure, now they say they will run it independently, but if Amazon were to struggle with Whole Foods, the first thing they do will be to lower labor costs and food costs.

Unions to protect workers are now more important than ever in this new age of monopolies.

Serious question - why hasn't the Uber board replaced Kalanick yet? While it is indisputable he successfully brought Uber to where it is now, it doesn't seem like he has the good judgement to be leading Uber at this stage of the company's lifecycle. Wouldn't the best thing for the company at this point be a complete overhaul of leadership?

Thanks for clarifying the point about the bluetooth - this definitely got buried for me. The case is a good stopgap for improving battery life, but I still think they need to last 10 hours on a single charge to be really useful. For instance, 5 hours won't be enough for a plane trip if you include the time it takes to get to the airport/arrive at your destination. If they can just last a little bit longer, I'd be more on board with the change.

100% agree. I carry a pair of Apple earbuds with me to use interchangeably with my phone and my Mac laptop. The new lightning headphones that come in the box won't be compatible with my laptop, so I'll either need to use the old earbuds with a phone adapter or the new earbuds with a laptop adapter or I need to carry around both sets of earbuds with me.

That said, their vision for the world to go 100% wireless is absolutely right. However, I don't think their execution is great in this area. Their AirPods don't hold a long enough charge quite yet and they are highly susceptible to being lost. Also, while I think Bluetooth has many many problems, I wish Apple spent time improving that standard instead of introducing their own standard.

Why can't we compromise a bit here? I don't think many people have issues with folks renting out their place for a few weeks during the year, but buying property and using it to attract vacationers to a residential area is very different. It can change the city by causing businesses to cater towards more tourists and to reduce available housing stock.

What if people could only rent out their primary residence for no more than half the year unless the property is exempt as a vacation home? Perhaps this could be a good compromise for cities to encourage Airbnb while effectively banning the practice of buying homes exclusively for Airbnbers.

Hold on - a lot of these comments here are assuming that this probe will result in more regulation for AirBnb, but according to the article, it seems like these senators are only calling for the FTC to study the impact companies like AirBnB have on the short-term rental market and the housing market.

How is this a bad thing? Isn't gathering more data better than not having this data?

Which is completely absurd because not only were many of these laws recently enacted, but their the efficacy of some rules is also questionable (most notably the calorie count law).

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the difference cited by this study was due to walking. I know that I've had to exert extra effort living in SF to be more active than I had to when I lived in NYC.

I wonder if there will be a follow-up study looking into the actual reasons why life expectancy is higher in NYC.

I think this is why Tesla's home battery is going to be such a big deal in the near future. You could buy your own solar panel system and use it to charge your home battery, which would in turn power your electric car. You wouldn't be adding additional stress to the grid and it would probably be less expensive in the long-run. Not to mention that you'd be running on 100% renewable energy.