This skirts the question, because all skill matched co-workers would be equally hard to find.

The fact is, when working from home, if being paid the same as people who are in office, you are getting paid functionally less than your peers. Are you ok with that?

That's fine, and you're allowed to, but it doesn't mean those spaces don't have value, and cost you something to use. Just because you don't care about the lost value, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Furthermore, no successful company on the face of the planet would take the stance you're talking about your property about their own.

It's easy to be "ok" with that, when you're the one in that privileged position.

Would you still be ok with it, if all your in office, responsibility and skill matched co-workers got raises to match your pay, while you got none?

Just because you already used it as a home office, it doesn't mean that room doesn't have value. You could rent that room out at market value, and just because you don't, it doesn't mean it doesn't have market value. You're just paying that sum of money to yourself, instead of having someone else pay you that sum of money.

But lets assume you're 100% correct about everything you said: You're in a VERY small minority. However, once you consider that you're NOT correct about your calculations, then you realize that you're getting screwed and don't even know it.

Oh, so you wouldn't mind me setting up my office in your house to work from rent free? Because that's literally what the company is doing. You're delusional or need to learn finace if you think it costs you less to work from home than work from the office.

Are they paying you more than an in-office counterpart? Because there should be a bonus for working remote.

You guys realize it COSTS more for companies to pay for office space for in office work right?!

You realize it COSTS YOU WAY MORE money to work from home, right?!

Why on EARTH would you take a pay cut to work from home?!

You should get a PAY RAISE!

This is baffling that people can't think this through. No wonder people are perpetually in debt.

In 2015, I worked at Shopify, and we'd occasionally have guest speakers come into our office for our weekly "Engineering Talks".

One day a Facebook engineer came in and was doing a talk on how they did A/B testing, as well as how they tracked user engagement with certain features and whatnot. It's what he told us in this talk that made me refuse to ever install Facebook on my phone again.

He let us know about several things, some of which were more mundane and are now common practice, like how if they used the iOS (or built in system) spinner when loading, people would think it was their phone that was slow and not Facebook, and how they would fill in blocks that looked like text right away before the content was finished loading to make things look like they are happening faster. Everyone does these things now, so not too surprising.

But the other things he said were truly shocking. Two in particular stood out:

Facebook uploads (or at least did at the time) all your photos to their servers in the background, all the time. Then when you choose to "upload" them, they show you a fake loading indicator, and simply mark the photo as now visible on their servers, since they were already uploaded in the background.

Facebook turned on and used the front facing camera on your phone to record and watch you, to track your eye movements to see what part of the page you were looking at the most. All of which would get uploaded to their servers in the background.

Stunned, I rose my hand and asked for clarification: "This isn't in production right? This is just with your testers, correct?"

Nope, it was in production. This was in the app for every user of Facebook.

Remember that Instagram "glitch" a few years back where people could see their camera was on even when they weren't using their camera, after iOS and Android added the camera indicator into their OS? Yeah, that wasn't a glitch...

The neck beards have arrived, singing the exact tune I mentioned.

People like this person are the problem. You simply can't break Windows like that, shy of manually deleting files. There is no commonly user-assessible way to do that, and the built-in system apps don't call external libraries like that.

In Linux? Not only is there no prompt as this person says, but it's easily possible. Why are they using Python for core functionality in the OS anyways!?

There is no good reason for this. Period.

The people who defend this are the people who are the reason the 'Linux desktop' will never happen.

Needlessly derogatory, but accurate.

Linux has a lot of strengths, unfortunately most people in charge of it's development have a mindset of "if you can't figure it out, it's your problem and you're stupid".

This means things like running 'sudo apt remove firefox' or 'sudo apt remove python' will brick your desktop environment.

Uninstalling a web-browser, or a development environment shouldn't brick your OS. That's just stupid, and arguing otherwise is the pinnacle of ignorance.

The reasons behind why that happens doesn't matter, because any reasonable person wouldn't think doing either of those actions would cause problems, because it simply shouldn't... yet it does... and Linux people staunchly defend things like this as being acceptable. They are not, and this is why no one uses Linux as a desktop OS.

A Chromebook is as much a Linux desktop as Android is a Linux phone, which is to say not at all. MacOS and iOS are actually UNIX, with nice interfaces, but ChromeOS and Android? The Linux underpinnings are circumstantial more than they are a technological need, and anything the user touches, doesn't actually need to or directly interact with the Linux underpinnings. They could just as well be running windows underneath... Which actually does happen in development.

They are not an Operating System as much as they are an abstraction layer.

Technically, your best choice is within 1000 years, because that encompasses all the other options, except never. Meaning, that if AGI happens anytime in the next 1000 years, even if it's next week, then it would have happened within 1000 years, making that a correct option.

Serious question: Twice, in such a short time span, and not at all for the last 12+ some odd years since the original SARS-CoV-1?

They said in one of the sub-articles that there were two totally separate strains that jumped to humans for SARS-CoV-2, in the span of a couple months.

Why did those two strains jump within such close succession of one another, and no more since our recent SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, or any for the last however many years since SARS-CoV-1?

Is it just bad luck? Why were there suddenly two separate strains that could jump at around exactly the same time?

This is what I'm having great difficulty with.

Peoples memory is terrible evidence though. There are an innumerable number of people who were falsely convicted of crimes they didn't commit because some well meaning person miss-remembered, and accused an innocent person of committing the crime.

Manufacturing compelling footage such as this should be very troubling, as it taints any new information that may come forward.

If you're following the self driving space closely, you'll know that people in the industry generally think that level 3 self-driving vehicles are at least 5 years away, with most thinking over 10 years. Going up to level 4 or 5 is MUCH MUCH further away.

The thing is... the problem gets exponentially harder. The self driving stuff you see the Tesla closed betas do are no where NEAR good enough to be relied on, nor deployed to the general public for occasional use. People don't realize that Humans have fatal car accidents ~2 per 100 million miles driven, and have accidents at (I believe) something like 1 per 100k miles driven. Ask yourself: do any of these systems drive that many miles without making a mistake that uncorrected would result in an accident or death?

The answer is CLEARLY no.

We'll be lucky if we see Level 4 cars in our lifetimes, let alone in the next few years.