There is a reason why continental Europe (and with it the countries they colonized) drive on the right: the French Revolution and Napoleon.

Traditionally, people kept to the left side of the road, which was already the rule in Ancient Rome. In France, with coaches, carriages and riders keeping to the left, pedestrians started to walk on the right, so they could see oncoming traffic and step aside not to block the coaches and riders, which were mainly aristocracy. In the French Revolution, everyone was a citizen, and now, everyone kept right, and especially the military marched on the right side of the road. In the Napoleonic Wars, this was carried over to most other European countries with the exception of the British Islands and Northern Europe, and now, this is the rule everywhere except in the British Commonwealth and Ireland.

To me, this is a manager not fit for his job. The young worker had handed in his vacation in advance, and the manager knew that he was on person short on staff. Still, he was not able to adjust workload accordingly. This is solely a fail on the manager's side, not an attitude problem of the young worker.

I don't understand how an employer can refrain from hiring anyone because he mysteriously intuits that some potential employees lack "work ethic".

Moreover, that simple phrase conceals a wealth of assumptions - not all of them reasonable or healthy. Many of us grew up with the belief that "work ethic" was normal and anyone lacking it was bound to fail through their own lack of moral fibre.

But such assumptions cut both ways, or ought to in a decent society. If "work ethic" says that employees must work hard and continuously, obey orders diligently, and sincerely try to further their employer's interests, shouldn't it also dictate that the employer has some reciprocal duties?

How much "work ethic" is it reasonable to expect of intelligent, observant people who notice that their employer treats them as fungible "resources", to be hired and fired in mindless response to the twitch of a spreadsheet, and exploited to the bone while they are employed? Which is normal behaviour for many bosses who sincerely believe that it is their moral duty to squeeze out every last ounce of effort and ingenuity from their subordinates before tossing them heartlessly aside as soon as "computer says"?

Shouldn't bosses treat their employees morally as part of their own "work ethic"?

I live in Trinidad, CO, just north of the New Mexico state line. Several years ago there was a major brush fire up near Colorado Springs, about 124 miles away. The wind was from the north and strong enough that the smoke from that fire came past us and kept going south over Raton Pass into New Mexico. The particulates from the smoke were bad enough that it was impossible to take a deep, full breath without coughing. You don't need to be near a fire to be affected by it, just down wind, and how far away depends on how strong that wind is.

I've seen claims that using seawater on inland fires would salt the Earth and kill the plants. Well, if the plant is on fire then it is already dead, or will be soon if the fire isn't extinguished quickly.

That's not the main way that salt water kills the plants. When you use salt water to put out a fire, part of that water soaks into the ground and makes it more salty than it was. Then, when the fire's out and seeds in the ground start to sprout, they may find that the soil's too salty for them and die and the only way to get ground cover back is to plant a different species that's more salt tolerant, changing the ecology of the burnt area permanently. Most people consider this a Bad Thing, which is why it's not done even in coastal areas where it would be easy. Please note that in California, those tanker aircraft that drop tons of water at a time on a fire fill up from lakes and reservoirs, even where it would be quicker to use the ocean.

Climate change has political ramifications. But that's not the problem at hand here.

Climate change poses big political questions: 1) Do we want this? 2) If not, do we want to do something about it? 3) Either way, who will pay for it?

"Politization" means that people try to answer 3) with "someone else than me" by either claiming question 1) does not exist at all, or answer 2) depending on their political affiliation, completely ignoring 3).

Geographical mobility used to be much easier. In the age of credit scores and limited housing, it is extremely difficult to find a landlord who will admit you without a job, and much harder to find a job that will hire you without already being local.

Well, credit scores as we know them have been around since the 60's...so, not really that new.

There's PLENTY of housing....just depends on what part of the US you are in.

I see houses for sale all the time where I live (New Orleans area)....it may be scarce in NYC or west coast urban areas....but that is not the whole US.

In other parts of the US, there are homes...GOOD jobs, and cost of living is much less.

And those are regular W2 jobs.....if you jump into 1099 contracting....you can work wherever and very much often....remote.

I've done both....and if you have any job experience, you can get jobs before you moved.

I've never moved before having a job in that area....

I currently work hybrid. It reduces my effective pay by around 10%, which is a hell of a cut. It gains me nothing, since all meetings - even when we're all in the same room - are via teams, because company policy.

I see no added value from visiting the office.

Not so easy once your kids have friends and school in Seattle.

As a child, I had to move with my parents a number of times as Dad progressed through his career....

Hell,, military brats do it all the time still....but it wasn't that long ago this was pretty common....grow up, leave the nest....it's ok and natural....

I guess you must be single or young....Reasons not to leave your area: owning a house, family, friends, not wanting to pull kids from school during critical times (or mid year), established connections, and a lot more tech jobs in Seattle than 99% of the rest of america, outside silicon valley? "Sell your house" and then you pick up a house that is also overpriced but pay much higher property taxes. Income tax is *zero* in Washington...Also, this is actually Redmond, not Seattle proper.

When did people get to be such pussies about moving?

Hell, when I grew up, this was a common thing....you moved to where the best job or new opportunity was.

Fun? No.

PITA? Yes

But families did it as a matter of how life is/was....

I remember as a kid moving a number of times

...as my Dad career progressed.

I myself have moved....

Do people today believe that as grown adults they STILL have to live near Mommy and Daddy?

Friends? Well hell, there's a TON of ways to stay in touch that weren't there when I was young....you only had phone calls and snail mail growing up and if they were real friends....you stayed in touch.

Today it's a piece of cake to keep in touch.

When I grew up, most people I knew hit the road at 18yrs or so and often it was to a different state for college and jobs....no one had to stay in same town as Mommy....but then again, we never too "Mommy" out on job interviews like they apparently do today...

So....I know this sounds strange this day in age..BUT you could do what they did in the "olden days" of say 20+ years ago and...

...MOVE TO WHERE THE JOBS ARE....

Simple really.....believe it or not, people used to do this type thing without a 2nd thought....

When shoud that have been? I am in the field since about 30 years, and I can't remember those alleged days.

This might work if the people from your team are in the same office building. But if your team is spread via several locations, the benefit of being in the office is starkly reduced.

Take away the satellites, and you effectively take away the drones. Don't kid yourself. The destruction of comms satellites will cripple nations, as we've largely gotten rid of backup terrestrial navigation aids like LORAN in the West, while both Russian and China kept legacy nav and com systems as backups, and are even expanding them. The first day of the war, satellites will be the very first thing to go, because you go after your enemies communications first.

The "higher up" would be the Minister of Defense, and if that fails, the Chancellor of the Republic Austria. But as the head of Direktorat 6 and the Cyber corps is not a political appointee, but a career soldier, it's quite complicated for the Minister of Defense to buy Office Licenses while the head of Direktorat 6 refuses to install it on any army computers.