So let me get this right:

If you're not a old-timer remote person, you are required to come to the office often and collaborate because it has great business benefits (says Zuck)?

If you are an old-timer remote person, you are forbidden to come to the office often and collaborate, even though it has great business benefits (says Zuck)?

This is looking an awful lot like just wanting to order people around, and not actually being interested in what benefits the business, Zuck?

Now, about the business benefits of your legless Metaverse....

A product manager who does not concern themselves with metrics is incapable and unsuited for their job and should be fired immediately.

These must be the only other businesses in the entire world that Amazon cares about.

Amazon does not care about its suppliers of things it sells, it does not care about the companies it buys services from, it doesn't care very much about AWS business customers... but apparently the sandwich sellers of mid-town Seattle are a critical concern for Amazon. Wow.

I am amused to note that Softbank take great pains to state that they did due diligence but were defrauded. Almost like they neglected that in some other investments and are feeling embarassed.

There doesn't have to be, but it is very handy for you that there is. Handy for paying out pensions, for example

Yeah, that went real well in the 1880s to 1910s. Bank runs all over the place.

Wrong, too.

Again: US government spending is not the problem. US Government debt is not the problem. US government inability to coherently manage spending, debt and tax IS the problem.

Do you even read the references provided, bro?

That the US Government has debt is not the problem. The US Government carrying long term debt is a critical contribution to the economy (because how else can you put your money somewhere where both its value guaranteed by the Gov't and you get a guaranteed rate of return?).

The problem is that the US Government's failure to create a stable government financial management structure, and the continual internal sabotage of government financial management since the 1990s, makes the US government less reliable than a AAA rating requires.

That sabotage started with Gingrich. It was his entire plan. Before Gingrich, the US government managed its financial affairs in a stable fashion - whether it borrowed more or less was a political policy decision, but when it did borrow more it arranged to manage that borrowing competently, and repayment was certain. During and after Gingrich, this borrowing is managed incompetently and repayment is a little less certain - and there is no sign of the sabotage attempts stopping. That's why the AAA rating is gone.

Stop thinking that sovereign government finances work like your personal finances. That is your first mistake in this debate.

Yellen is correct that the US economy is fundamentally strong and resilient.

But Fitch is correct that the stability and competence of the US Government's financial governance has been deteriorating and Yellen doesn't address that at all.

The way that the US system of government allows the legislature to commit to spending without committing to equivalent revenue and borrowing is crazy, and no other respectable country does this. The fact that minority factions within the US government continue to exploit this for internal political purposes, thereby destabilising the entire US government's ability to service its debts or operate as a going concern for their own personal political objectives, continues to make the US Government less reliable as a borrower, or even lender.

This started in the Clinton administration, and specifically the long term plan by Newt Gingrich (and his allies) to sabotage the mechanism of government so that US citizens would lose faith in the stability and competence of the government, allowing emotive and populist policies to prevail. Robert Rubin, who was the Treasury Secretary, put it well: "This is no way for a great nation to conduct its financial affairs"

This is still no way for a great nation to conduct its financial affairs, two decades later.

They produce a lot of gas and then get shat out in your feces. Note that a significant amount of your feces is gut bacteria, not components of food that you ingested.

A couple of decades ago I was riding an SF Muni bus which came up to a bus stop with a car parked in it. The driver used the external PA system on the bus to sardonically abuse the driver of the car until they ran out of the nearby store looking embarassed, jumped into the car, and drove off.

Tickets work better, but this was more amusing.

Also, cameras on buses to catch misuse of bus lane /bus parking has been standard in London for years.

I completely agree with everything you say, but are people expected to own two cars - an expensive short-range electric one and an intermediate-price long range combustion car?

That only works for well off people - even with a comfortable tech company salary, I'd prefer not to have to pay that much for cars that work for all my uses. I'm more aiming for one expensive car that does it all (which is what I have now, and it's powered by diesel).

And your point is?

What I say is true in Western Europe, too. Don't be so US-centric.

Also, USA has about 183 million light vehicles (cars, small trucks, etc). Norway has about 2 million, so of course it's going to need more chargers.

People want an electric car with long range because they don't want to have to stop and charge at inconvenient times. They don't want to have to rely on finding chargers along the way that may or may not work, may or may not be fast, and may or may not be occupied already. Or may or may not even be present, if they are away from major highways or urban areas.

The current state of electric car charging sucks. Anything less than fast (>100kW) charging is useless if you have to wait for it - i.e. if it's anywhere other than your home or a destination where you will be for several hours or overnight. There are not enough fast chargers, they are not reliable enough, and their cost is not predictable enough.

The only country with a good enough density of fast chargers is Norway and that's why everyone there thinks driving an electric car is a fine thing to do (the tax breaks help, too). Elsewhere, you get one with the longest range you can, and hope you don't get unlucky too often.

People may drive shorter distances most of the time, but sometimes they do not. A car that works for 90% or 95% of journeys is not a good replacement for their current car that works for 100% of journeys because it is a 5 minute stop at a fuel station to fill up. Buying a longer range car means that problem becomes less likely.

So Huffman is planning to destroy 2/3 of the value of Reddit, make it less reliable, and let Nazis infest the platform again?

I wonder what Reddit's current shareholders think of that idea?

So, apart from being stalked by amoral employees (not any more, allegedly...), having the fare jacked on me whenever Uber thinks they can get away with it, and general lawbreaking - Uber now wants to whore me out to their advertisers while I pay them for the car ride?

I am now even less of a customer, even more a resource to extract and exploit.