both sides want to use military spending to keep their flagging economies going. Eisenhower warned us about it, but if it's one thing we never do it's listen.

that writes stuff like "sharply beyond expectations" about low sales. That's the kind of chutzpah one could only dream of.

You work a *lot* more hours. And you do work. Back in the day you'd have time to do research projects to keep my skills up no problem, it was encouraged. These days you're on 24/7 and doing one very tightly defined task because your CEO doesn't want you to be too critical to the company, they want a cog in the machine they can replace as needed, even if that means paying a little more. The predictability is worth it.

I mean, I guess if you're one of those freaks that doesn't need sleep. I've known a few. Get by on 4 hours a night and they're fine. It's like having an extra 28 hours a week in your life. But for us mere mortals we're kinda stuck. We make due with what we've got.

The belief that old technicians are unwilling/unable to update their skillset is largely false. Only the bottom-tier of technical talent has such a learning disability. Most technicians can do this easily.

This false belief is used to justify ageism of course, but the real reason motivating ageism is the very true fact that young technicians are much more willing to harmfully overwork themselves than old technicians. New technicians naively believe that all that overwork proves their importance to their employer and secures them a high salary and a secure job. These things are entirely false, and come at a cost of health and life-enjoyment. By the time they learn these lessons the hard way, they have become old technicians who are no longer wanted.

As an aside...

Over the course of my career, I saw businesses adopting technologies which are not very portable and not likely to live very long. The reason is....it was new, cool, trendy, sounded good in marketing, easier to draw tech talent that knows it and wants to work on it. The downside is...they now have a very large application written in technology that has been killed by its own vendor, and the path to upgrading to the new tech is very expensive.

It is still entirely possible to build super-fast, responsive, immersive websites today using ancient tech like the Common Gateway Interface, Apache, HTML/Javascript/CSS, with C++ on the back end. Tech written that way, and written well, can run circles around the bloated third-party-heavy slopped together crap that gets churned out for most websites. BUT nobody wants to use that old tech because it is harder to use (especially C++), takes longer to implement, harder to find talent who are willing to use it, and doesn't confer any buzzword bingo benefits to the marketing team.

So it IS true that tech gets reinvented every few years, and it IS true that everything that was written on the latest tech now needs to be re-written, but it is NOT true that things have to be that way (as there IS a category of old tech that would totally work and work well for these purposes and would avoid the need for re-writes every few years). Most companies just don't have the will to take that kind of long-term view.

you have to get out of tech by 35. It's not because young people are more savvy of the latest trends, it's because experience is basically worthless because tech moves so fast. In 5 years your knowledge is out of date unless you've been keeping up with it on your own time, and good luck doing that working 60-70 hours a week.

So you either move into some kind of management or customer service role or you get out of tech. That works when the economy is growing like gangbusters because there's enough spots for you, but when the economy is contracting (they way all are because of trickle down economics + massive amounts of automation) it breaks down.

and a democratized workplace if you're going to do something like this. I'm sure many here on /. (which leans a bit conservative) don't agree with these protestors, but think a little ahead to a time if/when there *is* something you agree with.

Having a say in how the company you work for is run is something we should all desire, at least if you don't believe in Divine Command Theory.

Their goal was to buy up a ton of companies and then sell them all in one big package for a huge profit. We had any sort of antitrust law enforcement that wouldn't even be possible. When interest rates went up that was the basically the Doom of it. Nobody was going to get the cash to buy out all their recent acquisitions. As a result tons of games have gone unfinished in a whole bunch of people lost their jobs and whole studios are basically dead. Entire franchises are basically over.

You really need to stop these destructive private equity buying sprees. They're terrible for everyone but a handful of Wall Street ghouls

To drive desalinization plants and solve the water crisis in the Southwest. The problem is that'll cost a whole bunch of money for the extra infrastructure needed to get the power where it needs to be. And it's surprisingly hard to get that money because so much of California's money needs to go to the Southern States to keep them barely functional

The Sunshine policy didn't work. The North Korean government didn't like how it reduced their power. They are more interested in power than in increasing the opportunities for their people. The North Korean government uses aid to increase its power (by controlling its distribution), and rejects aid or connections that it doesn't control.

So the Sunshine policy would work great if it made connection to people at lower levels, but since the North Korean government prevents that, it becomes a means to increase the power of the North Korean government.

Commerce Clause. It's been that way for over a century. It's why the TVA could exist. We stopped pretending states were little fiefdoms in the late 1800s. The interconnected nature of them in a modern economy ("modern" here meaning anything after the Industrial Revolution) triggers the Commerce Clause and in turn gives them the authority needed.

and it's the estimated time to build the entire plant. For solar you don't have to worry about melt downs so there's a hell of a lot less regulation. You'd be looking a a few weeks to a month to make sure nobody did something stupid, and most of that is waiting on inspectors which the $7b is I believe meant to help address (though that funding might be coming from a different pot)

then it's good. Would I prefer the government just build it out themselves? Sure, but I'm guessing most of the folks bitching about this subsidy would shit kittens if we did that.

you need to build a solar farm. The teleco subsidies are pretty much handed out w/o strings attached but if you tried to just sign up for this one you'd find yourself in jail in about 6 years when they caught up with you and prosecuted you for fraud.

at best. Sometimes worse. Hertz got out of EVs and besides unpredictable and severe depreciation maintenance was a big factor. That could just be a Tesla thing, since they were all Teslas, but by all accounts the current crop of EVs from other manufactures are still iffy. That's not a surprise, it's a brand new platform.

Also, oil changes are every 6000 miles and have been for ages. If you're low mileage you can go a whole year. I work from home and put very little mileage on my car, so I do the change with full synth once a year for about $100 bucks. but even worse case you're looking at an extra $300-$500 a year. Not cheap, but it wasn't enough to make Hertz keep the Teslas.

And yeah, people are going to take away our gas buggies. There's multiple laws on the books right now to phase them out in 6-10 years. Personally I'd rather have walkable cities and public transportation. An realistically those laws will just get pushed back. But they're getting pushed back because EVs are still too expensive for regular folk to afford. China has affordable EVs... for China. But that's more a quirk of exchange rates and their ability to use borderline slave labor. Even without the tariffs it just doesn't translate here.

And we've got a few major issues with EVs that aren't being addressed. Higher weight means they burn through tires (and put a ton of extra tire particulate into the air), an EV battery fire is a nightmare and replacing an EV or even Plug-In-Hybrid battery is fraught with risk. I've seen EVs where the battery is more than the car...

On the positive end EVs really do reduce our dependency on foreign oil. But as it stands I spend about 2 months out of the year working for my car instead of myself, and I drive an old car very few miles and own it outright. It's looking more and more like an EV is going to push that to 3 months, and I make good money.

All's that to say I don't think EVs are a solution to our transportation woes.

Coupled with the fact that they continuously buy out any potential competition means that they need to be and should be subject to additional regulation above and beyond what a normal company would be subject to. This is double for Europe and any other Nation outside the United states. It's not for example as if Europe had any choice or save in Facebook buying out multiple potential competitors as they started to gain market share with younger users. Those decisions were made on us soil by us judges.

Ideally Facebook should be broken up and it's very acquisitions turned into private companies and they should no longer be allowed to buy out potential competitors. But if we're not going to take even that basic step we shouldn't be surprised Europe isn't going to stand by like idiots