I agree. WFH only people probably think they should be paid the same.

I have a rather unique skillset. But application of that skillset requires onsite. I'm paid accordingly.

Because the conditions that caused it went away. Because only a subset of job positions can be WFH only. Because those employees who have to go onsite might have a good reason to expect to be paid more. While I do 50/50 WFH - Onsite, if there was a person working only offsite and paid as much as me, I'd demand extra compensation for wearing suits, and work travel. They'd have to deal with it.

I see - you appear to be saying that I claim that onsite work is a panacea for companies, I am not. But I will say specifically that if I insisted to not have my 50:50 arrangement, but always at home. I wouldn't be working there. And the pay and benefits are such that it would be stupid for me to decide to die on that hill. I make as much money in three months as I used to make in an entire year. Would you insist on working at home if spending some time at the office allowed you to quadruple your pay?

There ya go. The insults. Make no mistake, I am saying this and only this - The reason for the marked increase in WFH has largely gone away for many with the end of Covid restrictions. I gave reasons, and the consequences for some. You can disagree with them, but calling me a shill is silly, just shows you are quick to anger, and perhaps just read a line of a post then go ready to rumble. Give me a reason exactly Why companies would want some people back after you point out that remote work is a wonderful thing for them? Seems that in a world where the standard Slashdot outlook is that corporations regularly squeeze out every cent they can out of the workforce and the working environment - they would be insisting on everyone WFH, and stop the lease on the building, fire that staff that used to maintain and clean the buildings, and enjoy the resulting windfall. Or at least, moving to a much smaller and less expensive place in a small town.

Wowswers dude. I state some facts and you go ballistic.

I hope you don't go to onsite work, you must be a real pill to be around. Stay angry my friend, it is kinda entertaining .

Which companies? Regardless, while I'm triggering everyone, I might as well restate, if you are opposed to going to an office and consider it a non-starter, it's time to look for a job that will give you the happiness you deserve

I'm just stating some facts that should be pretty obvious. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/v...

I'm also stating why some people don't want to return to onsite, including FTA things like a 2 hour commute.

What is sort of funny is that while your post isn't angry, some are pretty unsettled by what I posted.

I find it fascinating they my post pisses off so many people.

Yeah, there have always been careers that are not working in an office. This isn't about those. They aren't being asked to return to office. I'm speaking from the point of what happened in 2020 for a few years. If the job was performed onsite once, the employer will likely want that again.

This is utterly simple. If you have a personal requirement of never stepping in an office, that is just a personal requirement. Not one thing wrong with that. You find a Job that fits your requirements just like we all should. You do you!

I do 50/50 WFH (actually work from anywhere) and 50 percent onsite. It's a good gig.

I only point out that WFH is a personal choice, and that some people made decisions that would seem to have entertained the idea that WFH was a permanent situation. If a person moved far away from their workplace HQ, no, they don't want to uproot back to a higher cost of living area. The decision to move far away for lower cost of living was perhaps not the best, as if they were once required to work onsite, there is a pretty fair chance they will be wanted onsite again.

I don't get why you think that your personal situation is somehow applicable to everyone. I mean good for you. Your job supports almost total WFAand yes there are jobs like that.

If I were to claim mine was the standard, I would say that since I work 50 Percent from home, and 50 percent onsite, that is how everyone should work. There have been times I performed the non-site work in hotels while on vacation, so yeah, it's WFA. But this is not my point. My point is that during Covid times, there was a surge in WFH. Some tried to take advantage of the situation and WFH by moving to low cost of living areas. Then the pandemic lifted, as they always do.

Those people definitely do not want to return to office and for obvious commute reasons. And if they refuse, that's okay. They can find employment that like yours, that requires almost no office time. Is it your thesis that there is a job situation like yours for everyone?

My point was that Covid times made WFH attractive, normal times, not as much.

1. Pandemic happens

2. Employers adapt, start widespread WFH

3. Some employees determined they can "profit" by moving to or living in low cost areas (think Upper Peninsula Michigan vs Silicon Valley)

4. Pandemic goes away, as all do.

5. Employer wants employees back

6. Employees who like the informality, ie you can work in your PJ's or naked if you wish, are not happy. 6. Really remote area employees really don't like coming back.

So I can understand the upset, but the mistake was thinking that WFH was going to somehow be permanent, as if everyone was going to live in low cost areas, and reel in high cost area salaries.

All that said, if a person wants to never go to a workplace the rest of their lives, they should seek out employment that suits them, quit employment that does not. Keeping in mind that they are restricting their job market.

Smart money, and playing the long game.

But there will always be many thinking they can get rich quick.

Depends on the structure. I have people who keep track of what is happening, operating strictly conservative options. They call or send an email, and I decide go/no go. They've done well for me.

Greed springs eternal.

I went through the Dot.com bubble. I went through the subprime bubble. I had friends who lost millions almost overnight. Two who managed to do it in both bursting bubbles.

I didn't lose a cent. My investment advisers were some of your "oldfag" archetypes. Except they were remarkably conservative investors for me who played the long game. But the long game isn't glamorous or flashy. It's a slow but accelerating slog. Point is, I now have more liquid money than any of them do now. Especially that poor guy who went from looking at a seriously flush retirement to Social security level living after her lost it all a second time.

So you don't hear a lot about us, you just see the stories about the high rollers, the handful of people that frankly, got very lucky. That inspires the greed in regular people who think they'll do the same. Then it all burns down. But there is always new greed to take the place of the old greed. Almost impossible, people thinking they can get rich quick and fancy themselves wise investors while carrying 3 maxed out credit cards are a great target.

400 percent leverage? in what universe does that even work?

Even in the article, it notes a 2 hour commute. Before the WFH situation grew people lived far away from their workplaces. During Covid times, many chose to look for cheap living expenses, and often lived much further away than 2 hours.

Now this was nice, rather like having our cake and eating it too. But a sober assessment would tell a person that it was not going to be permanent.

There are many positions that simply do not work for never coming to work. Some people have to be on-site. And there lies a conundrum. If people have to be onsite while some programmer for the same company lives in some really low cost area, there will probably be an effort by those people to ensure higher pay. As well with all things being equal, a person who is agreeable to either In person or WFH is going to be hired over a person who will only WFH.

The conditions that made WFH the best path forward have changed. And really, a good analysis would have told people that Covid wouldn't last forever, or even career length time. The conditions that favored introverts and people who collect high Silicon Valley pay while living in a low Cost of Living area were never going to be permanent.

Leaf batteries are air cooled, and their early BMS was very, very unfinished. Hence the rapid drop of range with time.

Modern EVs are pretty much all liquid cooled, and have complex battery (and) thermal management systems. Their degradation is much better than early leafs.

Reality is quite a bit more complex. Batteries do go bad when usage is bad. Rapidly. Fast charge to 100% every day, and see how it holds up. Hint: it won't.

What changed is that now we have mechanics with experience in battery management who will take a look a deep look into the battery data that they will pull from a modern BMS (which have improved massively in last 10 years), compare it to how it should have aged and will be able to give a detailed reports on how this car's battery holds up.

This means that people who do retarded shit to their EVs now struggle to sell the cars, while responsible owners who keep batteries in good condition can now charge a bit of a premium on used market in most developed nations (and increasingly, quite a few developing ones).

So in summary, this is about evolution of BMS coupled with emergence of experienced cadre of specialist mechanics who specialized in automotive batteries, their service and repair. You still shouldn't trust old batteries. But now, you have ways to verify.

Quoted against the censor trolls or baby-killer fans. Whatever.

I did spot a de-branded, de-logoed Tesla yesterday. I usually give the drivers a big thumbs down, but if he's already feeling the shame and pulled the logo, then that seems to be sufficient.

Okay, but I'm still disappointed that the intrinsically funny story didn't get any such comments.

Not really much of a coincidence because Apple news is frequent, but I just finished The One Device by Brian Merchant. I recommend it fairly strongly for folks who still enjoy reading fat books. Any left on ye olde Slashdot? Also interested in later books on the topic, but my main theoretical conclusion is that the Chinese must be putting backdoors into many or most of the iPhones built in their jurisdiction. Sort of a twisted joke, but I actually imagine that Huawei has the competence to support two versions, backdoored for domestic customers and clean for export, but I think Apple couldn't manage that trick, notwithstanding the secretive corporate culture, and as it relates to this particular story, I think the "backdoor" proof would hurt the stock price much more than 10%. (But the book also shows the limits of his technical chops... Especially in the cybersecurity sections.)

However Apple is the poster child for "opinion of value" uber reality. The book spends a chapter on how those marketing tricks work. Meanwhile, stock prices are just another opinion these years. Apple probably has more problems with the opinion leaders who are arguing Apple isn't doing enough AI yet.

Anyone hereabouts know enough about ye olde Hypercard to make an AI hypercard joke? Apple needs a house of AI hypercards to boost their stock price?