... that somehow was never published. Shocking, eh?

I don't recall her name any more, but I explained during our interview that it was a wrong-headed patent because it wasn't a non-obvious idea, just a stupid one. Storing user-specific data associated with a persistent browser cookie is a very obvious idea and many, many web sites were doing so from the time that Netscape invented the browser cookie for that very purpose -- the stupid parts were the risks of impersonation and compromise of server-side security. But, alas, the article never ran. RMS wasn't one of WSJ's advertising customers, I guess.

Unfortunately the few of us who will never purchase anything from scAmazon aren't missed.

Any annual pay increase is the opposite of a loyalty penalty, and it's required because when you penalize loyalty you don't get any -- and as an employer you are then stuck with constant recruiting and training costs.

Constructive dismissal targets individuals. This phenomenon that they're calling "quiet firing" is targeted at entire departments/job classifications/business units, typically to keep labor costs down by not paying annual wage increases and/or to avoid the cost of mitigating grueling labor practices that grind people down. Amazon is about to get stung by it.

Here in the small town where I live, most employers have been maintaining churn for the past decade and a half or so, and they've burned through the local labor pool to the point that they're cutting business hours and/or services because they can't get workers enough any more. The typically younger workers that they'd once been able to rely upon have all done stints at each of those employers, then were compelled to move away to greener pastures.

"Learn to Vote Better." It's a nice theory but it's unadulterated hogwash. Voting makes no difference at all.

Try reading: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens https://scholar.princeton.edu/...

... after a mad spam gang with a large botnet Joe-Jobs you with messages carrying huge attachments.

Musk, who deploys tweet bots to boost the share price of his companies, warning users that they're being manipulated.

If you define God as Spinoza did, then yes. :-)

I really, really, really wanted to be the one to say that. Good on ya!

Did not Earth itself "come from space" as an agglomeration of numerous smaller objects?

... back in 1973 with a Ford Pinto, ended very badly for the inventors.

https://performance.ford.com/e...

This is going to be the best year of the rest of our lives!

The referenced article is pure propaganda. Electronic countermeasures are a globally accepted form of military defense and we (USians) were jamming Soviet satellites at least as far back as forty years ago when I was in the US Air Force being a Space Systems Equipment Maintenance Technician. Everyone who can, does, and no one who does is surprised when the other guy does, too.

So lucky me, hitting the lottery over and over for two-plus decades. All this time I've believed that I've been serving the same market that my employers served, but without the outrageous employers' cut coming out of my earnings. And I called attention to it just to make fun of your tone, which relied upon weak analogies and an amusing cockiness. My anecdote is really just as meaningless here as yours and not something deserving of argument.

Let's revisit this subject in five years when the outcomes are evident. If there aren't volumes of horror stories from stranded former remote employees then I'm just an old guy who's out of touch with the industry to which his adult life has been devoted, and I'll accept that because I'll be about done with it all anyway. But if those volumes of horror stories exist we might want to find some other conclusion.

That's not how capitalism works. There's no incentive to improve efficiency if you're just going to give the increased production away. Unless you're a working stiff who can rationalize a pay cut as good for you. :D

So, in your world, people want to contract with independent programmers who are randomly lucky? :D I was just playing with the dismissive tone because I'm an old bastard who's been in the industry a long time.

The point I was hoping to make is that it's a bad freakin' deal. The boss scores reduced overhead AND reduced wages, and you get to go live where there aren't other employers competing for your talent. I'm all for remote work, but we already know what the market will bear because they were paying it and will continue paying it if one doesn't take their egregious deal. This being true, taking the deal means that you're now competing with your co-workers on price, and that's a downward spiral regardless of how inviting the first step looks.