The existence of a class of people who can't afford or don't have access to real food is a policy choice, not an iron law of the universe.

My company just tracks badge swipes and enforces it so compliance with return to office policies isn't really an issue. We are also allowed a certain amount of flexibility, so it's not that onerous.

I am surprised how naive so many commenters seem to be on this issue. Releasing documents that are retaliation for tariffs only in your home format and in home developed software is very much part of the diplomatic statement being made here. This should be obvious.

I suspect you are correct in this, however new tech definitely changes the market value for various kinds of labor.

This whole thread makes me appreciate my company's commitment to return to office more. I am an extrovert, so I (mostly) like being in the office - but being able to interact with your coworkers as actual people not mediated by any tech is worth more than I bet a lot of fully remote supporters would like to admit.

This might be one of the most dystopian things I've ever heard of.

You obviously have never had to deal with someones estate. I assure you, nothing about it is simple or easy and made much harder if you're also grieving while dealing with it.

They are, they are just less racist than all the other methods.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/02/reinstate-standardized-testing

This is not a 5th amendment issue, it's a matter for the 4th amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

If there is a warrant based on probable cause, they can search it.

No, their job is supposed to be to define a fair and safe playing field.

Not exactly. They are supposed to create laws and a regulatory structure in accordance with the best interest of the people so governed. There are many competing interests at stake, and a "level playing field" can have a lot of meanings.
It is a legitimate use of municipal authority to regulate the availability and type of housing stock, and to not allow disruptive business practices that negatively impacts constituents by reducing the stock of available housing and/or impacting the quality of life for long term residents.

Obviously in practice, the regulatory framework is often gamed by various entrenched interests, but ultimately municipalities will generally respond to the concerns of homeowners and long term residents as they vote.

Google not only admitted that brain teasers are useless; they eventually admitted that they found no correlation between ANY hiring criterion and job performance.

Employee performance in a role is affected by a large number of external factors. I have seen employees that were difficult to work with and not productive on one team that were model employees when moved to a different team with a new manager.
It's not hiring that's broken. The interview process should do two things: Confirm that the person actually has the experience they described on their CV, and to the extent possible, get a sense of their attitude and personality.

Actual employee performance is more a function of ones manager and the various processes they use to do their job. If the requirements gathering and architecture design process is broken at a company, it doesn't really matter how good a developer you hire.

From this brief description, it sounds like a better target of this suit might be Zipcar...

But that's not nearly as compelling a fight.

"No one buys insurance expecting up front to either subsidize other clients or be subsidized themselves"

The only reason people don't expect this is because they don't understand how insurance actually works. Apparently, you are one of these people.

As I recall back in the day, the reason to contribute to Open Source efforts was not because you were going to make bank from it, but to make sure that the source code was available and could be modified or extended by those people who wanted/needed to as long as they shared the results.

This movement has always been an explicit "end around" the restrictions of copyright law. Going back to the dark ages of closed source and proprietary code won't be doing anyone (especially open source developers) any favors.

A multi trillion dollar military defense complex.