The jury is still out on the long-term durability of bi-fold screens. Looking at the folding mechanism for the tri-fold doesn't inspire confidence in me.

While not even the office dress code requires a shirt and tie, I still wear them when WFH, as well as smart trousers. At the end of my working day I change into casual clothes. That's how I delimit being "at work" and being "at home".

"The one size fits all model of education is broken. "

It was broken the moment this method was being pushed. What worked was "One size fits MOST". You direct your resources on educating those who can benefit from the "Most" of the "one size". The ones that this doesn't work with is now a much smaller subset and can be managed with smaller class sizes (in the case of hands on need), special campuses (for behavior issues that would otherwise affect the "fits all" of the hated "one size fits all") and a much smaller pool of administrators necessary to make it all work.

Oh... less administrators. Never mind. Unions will hate it. Just shut up and give them more money.

Test321 said: "It's their right to call "hate speech" or "fake news" whatever they don't like."

Totally agree with this statement of yours.

From the article:

"...organized efforts to coerce American platforms to punish American viewpoints they oppose".

Calling something "hate speech" is quite different from actually calling on platforms to punish stuff for "whatever they don't like". So, your statement, while I agree with it as it stands doesn't really apply to this article.

Wouldn't doubt it at all.

"It's not like SpaceX did not have any missteps on their path to creating reusable boosters."

They weren't really missteps. It was part of their design philosophy. Build it enough to get past a "goal" (say, get past the launch tower) and test. If it doesn't meet the goal, ID the failure, redesign and test again. Once it reaches that "goal", create a new "goal" (sat, reach 20,000 ft). Repeat until it's reliable.

While this involves a lot of explosions, the actual time it takes to get a workable and reliable rocket was dramatically reduced.

Looks less like a failure on China's program and more like China learning from Musk.

"I like things simple. I really don't deal with milage, or all the other things I consider minutiae. I deal with simple numbers. What this means is not filling out milage reports and the other stuff that clutters up to work. Perhaps I'm eccentric. But I like simple because my actual work is quite complex."

As is my work -- however, my mileage report isn't "minutiae". It' averages $300-$500 every two weeks (I do a lot of driving --- particularly for projects). And the process isn't complicated. Basically a date, destination and total miles per line. In a text file. No clutter -- just a review of my travel calendar for 5 mins every two weeks and another 2-5 mins to transfer that to my expense report. Automagically appears in my pay check 8 days later.

"That's exactly my point"

Not a very good one.

"Commuting and using a tool for a work-related activity are not analogue one with another."

The *CAR* is the "tool" in the analogy, not the action.. I stand by my original post.

"I take it you don't get a salary? That you get paid by the second?"

I'm an "exempt" employee in California. Salary for over 2 decades.

I also turned down a company car to use my own. I get paid for "miles". $0.70 per. I do not get paid miles going to my office-- but from my office to any given site. At least during M-F. Sometimes I need to hit a site on the weekend, and miles start the moment I leave the driveway of my home.

There is zero expectation that my 8 hours start when I start my drive in to the office. It starts when I arrive. And yes, it's not uncommon (particularly during projects) that I work well over 8 hours. When that happens, we get comp-time at some point in the future.

"People expect to be paid for commute time too, at least in the sense that they will want more money if the commute is longer. Work from home made just coming to the office at all something which people want more money for."

People (employees) make that choice. They might take a longer commute for a job that pays more. It's not up to the employer to PAY for that commute ON TOP of their pay rate for a given job -- at least in my opinion.

"By that reasoning commuting with a vehicle provided by the employer should count as work time..."

Sigh....

You quoted me. There was more to what you were replying to than what you quoted. Read the rest:

"I would suggest that analogies are never "perfect" or "exact" -- they basically highlight similar bits of two different things to HOPEFULLY illustrate some concept or idea. If you are expecting it to be a 100% match, I think you might be misunderstanding what an analogy is."

I stand by my comparison. If the tool I'm provided is an employer-provided workstation, I should get paid the moment I start using it. If the tool I'm provided is a citrix session across a secure connection, I should get paid the moment I connect to it from my home PC.

Don't like the commute analogy? I would suggest that analogies are never "perfect" or "exact" -- they basically highlight similar bits of two different things to HOPEFULLY illustrate some concept or idea. If you are expecting it to be a 100% match, I think you might be misunderstanding what an analogy is.

I think that might matter. Running software through something like a citrix session via a secure connection on their home PC might negate any "when did they actually start working" argument. Much like I don't start getting paid the moment I hop in my car to go to work.

Kind of like a "digital" comminute.

"TX has ... far more corrupt state politics..."

Oh, you lost me there. I live in CA and couldn't disagree more. CA wins on that -- from the money holes of public schools, infrastructure spending, costs to actually build anything and homeless spending, money just vanishes.

Also the current and recent governments have just refused audits or direct "blue ribbon committees" to investigate. Hell, LA Mayor Bass in the great and broke city of LA spent several million$ of dollars on a team of private lawyers to prevent her from having to testify on where $2 billion (with a "B") in homeless spending went and her relationship with the head of LAHSA (appointed by Bass).

CA has spent the last 15-20 years blaming the oil companies of being greedy and getting rich of the backs of Californians -- which frankly is a damn lie. Our own Governor has appointed several "blue ribbon" committees to investigate (which, btw, aren't free or cheap) with no results. The "nutshell" version is that those oil companies are making so much profit that they keep shutting down and leaving CA. We're about to hit a wall of not enough production in CA to keep pipeline pressure enough to move crude through pipes to the few refineries we have left. That means moving crude by truck -- expensive and far worse for the environment, bring in crude or even refined gas from countries that don't have our standards. Apparently pollution doesn't blow across international waters. But ever "green" attempt gets HUGE amounts of tax payer funding and there are too many failures to list. The Ivanhaw Solar plant among the most recent. North of $2 billion wasted -- but many a CA union employee made out well during construction and leadership appointed by the state had insane salaries got rich. So... Go figure.

So, we're looking at north of $8 a gallon in the near future and our "hate fossil fuels" Governor is running around trying to find a buyer for one of the refineries -- and even offering to PAY Valero it's operations costs to stay (they aren't).

Texas is a piker next to CA.