Sr manager here. The reason managers don't want employees working remote is because it *requires* the manager to come up with and assign clearly defined deliverables to each individual, with expected quality levels (which can be quite tricky to define), and timeline. 99% if my manager colleagues, including my director, are completely incompetent and/or too lazy to put in that level of effort. On top of that, it also quite quickly exposes the star performers from the weaklings. And if done right and with transparency, where everyone sees what everyone else is working on and their progress towards, then you can't then just add more assignments to the star performers. You have to reward them in other ways, while at the same time the weaklings require constant coaching and then termination which, again, no one wants to deal with.

How did you rack up $200k in debt for undergrad? Did you choose an out of state, expensive school, and then take out loans for all/most of it? I am very familiar with the college selection/financial process, and these stories of hundreds of thousands in debt usually boil down to the student falling in love with a school that they should not have even visited, let alone admitted to, simply because they can't afford them. I live in PA where the state schools are some of the most expensive in the country and still they are, at the top end, ~$35k per year total with room and board and fees.

Wrong. At least at the D1 level, mens sports, particularly basketball and football, are major PROFIT centers for their respective universities.

I recall it the same way - the C128 was the successor, but very little software, if any, actually ran in C128 mode. Then, the Amiga came out. Pretty much everyone who could afford to moved on, either going to Amiga or Apple machines.

Solution is easy (for most people) - don't use your "work" laptop if you don't have to. For 90% of people WFH, 90% of the time nowadays they're using cloud services/portals etc. and don't need to be behind firewalls etc. Use your own machine. Been doing it for ~12 years now.

AdGuard for now blocks YouTube ads effectively, at least on my Mac on Safari (latest versions of OS+browser+M1). I also run Wipr which used to block YouTube ads (would still require clicking a 'skip ad' button) but that stopped working a couple of weeks ago. Since I have a Setapp subscription I gave Adguard a try and it has its own limitations but it works for YouTube ads. I now just keep them both enabled and haven't noticed any performance hit.

Steve Jobs was responsible for it's death, and his true motive was clear: he wanted to force as many people to buy through his App Store as he could. He knew it would be a long time before HTML5 could compete in the then known as "Rich Internet Application" (e.g., anything other than text and videos). So where did iOS users need to go to get that "Rich Internet" experience without Flash? Apps. And that necessitated them buying them through the App Store. Which Steve Jobs got a nice 30% cut of for each purchase. End of story. P.S. It didn't help that Adobe is lazy/incompetent. And Flash DID run on iOS - Kevin Lynch personally demo'd it at Adobe MAX sometime around 2008/9? I was there. He announced they were working with Apple to get Flash Player on iOS. We all knew ol' Steve would never allow that to happen. We all would have been better off if someone had bought Flash Player rights, or come up with something open-source to replace it, and get all the browser vendors onboard with it as a standard. Instead, we have a limited replacement (HTML5/JS) that is still catching up.