brianary @ brianary @startrek.website

Posts

4

Comments

230

Joined

2 yr. ago

This will be the basis of a wildly disproportionate, violent response aimed at anyone they want.

No, they will only want dissent bans.

A job is not a social club. You may need a mix of personality types, but if you lock yourself into a candidate pool from a tight geographic area, that'll be far more constraining.

You can't just make up a percentage based on anecdotal observation and expect anyone to take it seriously.

Generally, my online meetings work great. When there's lag, or for low-priority or asynchronous points, we use the text channel. No interruption. That's not really available in person. It also allows more input from thoughtful introverts, which typically get steamrolled and ignored in person.

There is work like construction, transportation, and customer service that can't really be remote.

I'm not sure if there's a good argument for work that can be done remotely to insist on both in person and remote work. It doubles the amount of workstation resources required, or compromises on at least one of them.

Maybe teams benefit from in-person communication? That's probably simpler for some that haven't found comparable online versions of whiteboarding tools or whatever. Good tools do exist, but feel people that haven't adapted to them by now, it'll take some real demand to make it happen. This might not be a characteristic of a highly effective team, though.

Most frequently, hybrid insistence seems do be more about justifying middle management, based on my highly unscientific observations.

To be fair, that was the whole point of Civil War.

They see it as pragmatism, I think.

That is circular reasoning, it's not the actual definition of "liberal", even if it is the functional definition of "Democrat".

Do you consider Kamala Harris a liberal?

That's a good punch-up. I'm in!

Even with that, the scariest part of the Borg originally was that they were just this undifferentiated swarm.

Criticism still needs to be based on something real in order for it to be valid.

And yet, in the end, yours only amounts to what you consider "likely".

Let's hold up on the self-congratulations a second.

There's a very long way between a multinational corporation's published policy and the practice at street-level, even if yesterday is the only report (so far). Is this a franchise? What authority does the store have contractually, or in practice? Is the policy enforced? Is there a history of enforcement? Was this a rogue employee, maybe a recent hire, with a political motivation?

Did you check the original thread https://x.com/AmmahStarr/status/1804608613916328334 for the context of the discussion? Did you check the account for a history of "rage-bait" before dismissing this woman's experience?

Skepticism is important, but caping for corps is seldom necessary. They pay people for that.

I hear you, too many are SUVs or "crossovers" (still "light trucks" for the purposes of scamming gov't regulations) as well.

But I'm pretty happy with my Leaf. 🤷

Somebody is really pushing an anti-EV narrative.

Right out of Carmageddon

When I want smaller than my ⚡🚗🍃 Leaf, I ride my ⚡🏍️ Metacycle or my ⚡🛵 niu N-GT.

The Leaf is a reasonable size, the Ioniq 6 as well I think.

Intentional or not, it's an exaggeration. Only a sith deals in absolutes!

While the "without any advantage over them" is an exaggeration, the point is that SUVs are using a disproportionate amount of resources. A fraction of SUV drivers routinely use them for the unique situation you describe, or for any jobs that a car couldn't do. I don't begrudge anyone using the right tool for a job, though rental often would work for infrequent exceptional needs. But the OP is an important point about wastefulness, and focusing on minor semantics or individual use cases is a distraction.

You are attempting to refute data with an anecdote. The assertion isn't that no SUV is useful, it's that they are disproportionately wasteful for their level of popularity.