Sorry?

Those articles are about government censorship on Twitter, not the total amount of censorship by Twitter.

More government censorship is a natural consequence of Twitter itself doing *less* censorship of its own, and I'd argue a much better place to be. If there is censorship it is better for it to be explicitly government driven (and tracked and reports), rather than the way it was before -- a private company doing it directly and then colluding with the government without any explicit legal requests or requirements to censor.

Oliver -

The post-Brexit immigration system allows hiring well paid engineers from anywhere in the world. It is only lower paid roles that are restricted to UK-only. Pre-Brexit there were dramatic restrictions on hiring anyone outside the EU -- it was only those 27 countries that you could hire from with (relative) ease.

For highly skilled immigration the new system than prior to Brexit is better in many ways, although attracting EU talent would be harder.

The real challenge for Intel is that EU appears to be offering subsidies (by the article) and politically satisfying the EU can go a long way, while Britain is relatively more relaxed (and less powerful).

Mark

This isn't a selective private school. This is an academy which is roughly equivalent to a charter school in America.

Some academies are also selective -- in this case it isn't a selective school, either. (But there is still competition to attract the most students, due to school choice.) As an academy, it has freedom to change its policies but students (parents) have freedom to choose their school (subject to availability of places).

It also isn't likely thinking about job interviews or presentations, but rather Oxford/Cambridge admission interviews. The number of students graduating to top-ranked universities is typically the most important rank for a secondary school. (private, state, academy, whatever.)

Will remote working have a marked increase post-Covid-19? Yes.

Will working 5 days a week in the city centre office decline dramatically? Yes.

But will cities decline? Not at all. They will become even more important -- with a far larger talent employee -- and offices in the suburbs will continue to die.

Instead, large connected cities will become the central-point for an ever increasing number of companies. People need to get together, need to sometimes see each other face-to-face, and that need won't go away -- so instead of seeing each other every day, there will be remote working and then the occasional/regular getting together in a well connected city. The city will flourish not from every-day offices, but from working and networking facilities for people who need to see each other. Most likely subject matter experts will be dispersed and occasional, while middle and upper management more likely co-located in the city. That, by itself, will change how people view the in-city or remote-working trade-off.

Suburban offices? Dead, dead, dead. Why limit your employee pool to a small area in the suburbs, when those same people would probably prefer working from home? Instead, base yourself in the city with flexible offices and hire from an extremely large area. Let people work from home with the occasional trip into the city.

Jon Katz's articles all seem to refer to the evils of corporatism and greed. I am baffled by this. Profit is the fundamental motive behind businesses in this economy. It can also be a significant motive for many individuals. According to my understanding of the world, the internet would not be where it is today if it weren't for this motive. Would it be so readily available, if it weren't for the profit motive of ISPs? Or telcoms providing the cables and networks, or Nortel/Cisco/whatever providing the equipment? Or the distributors distributing the goods? What about all of the hardware manufacturers, who, due to intense competition, are constantly striving to produce better goods at cheaper prices? (And succeeding.) Would technology be evolving as fast as it would, if it weren't for the currently massive incentives to improve the productivity of countless businesses? Everyone in the field is making a fortune because businesses can save so much money. (setting aside the stock market, there are still huge profits being made) It is also providing services to individuals where none existed before. Technology, without that profit motive, would largely remain some theoretical construct. It would have remained where the internet was when it was first founded -- as an academic & scientific interest. (Not that being that is bad -- just that it wouldn't be *nearly* as useful today as it is if it never changed from that.) From a pure technological point of view, there are many not-so-nice things out there. Microsoft, for instance. But Microsoft doesn't care about technology in and of itself, just as Amazon doesn't care about innovation or free speech by itself; Microsoft wants to sell and market the products people will most readily buy, which are not the most reliable, and Amazon will, to the limits of the law, make the most money possible (read: convince enough customers to buy from it), regardless of the consequences. Thankfully, in both cases it *does* involve some innovation and advances. Sometimes more, sometimes less. If it weren't for Microsoft's ease of use, would the internet be where it is today? (Seriously. It might be, but I'd argue that it played a strong role nevertheless.) As for Amazon and its patent lawsuits -- if I were an investor, I'd be disappointed if it did anything less. The problem isn't with Amazon -- it's his responsibility to go to the limits of the law to further his business -- but with the law itself. As an citizen, I'd object to the specific legalities. Personally, I wouldn't have him or Microsoft act in any other way.