lostcolony

As to "why shiny craft in the sky", we get patterns of light in the -vast- majority of situations. We have an optical system trained by millions of years to recognize patterns; throw in any sort of stimuli that doesn't fit the expected patterns, and our minds will still try and categorize it.

What you'll note we're not seeing are detailed craft with any sort of definition to them. As you say, no flying spaghetti monsters, but also not even something more complicated than an orb or a disk. Not even an orb with a decal on it. Not even as described, let alone the photo/videos. Just light and reflections. Even the Chinese surveillance balloon had more texture to it in its images and descriptions, and you'd at least think we'd have seen a spacecraft with some branding or customization, the equivalent of a Spitfire's Roundels or a shark's mouth decal or an identifier a la NCC-1701.

The financials aren't actually telling these companies to lay people off; the shareholders are. The macroeconomic climate is very different than the microeconomic climate; the microeconomic climate for most of these companies is "slow expansion", not "contract". In fact, many of them are still hiring even as they're laying people off because of that. But the shareholders are very much concerned, and so this is much more of a response to that.

Second, even if those recommendations were followed...that's an argument -against- your initial statement that "nobody's firing productive workers." I.e., if they were fired for reasons other than merit, than -somebody fired productive workers-.

But I really don't care either way; to your point - even Musk didn't want to acquire Twitter once he sobered up to the fact he was in too deeply to pull out. It's just his brilliant business acumen meant he went into it waiving due diligence. Which, yes, this random HN commenter knows better than to do, for any company, let alone a social media company.

I assume you got terrified when you heard, say, "Jeffrey Dahmer ate people", and started to question your own existence since obviously if he ate ALL the people you couldn't be here?

Remind me why Twitter is trying to rehire workers they let go, within a week?

There you go. A lot of companies that were forced to WFH -don't actually want it- and so haven't invested in changing their culture to actually be effective at it. Some companies that -have- embraced it...also haven't changed their culture to actually be effective at it. But some want it, and have, and, oddly, I think they're in the majority, since studies keep showing an increase in productivity and employee happiness https://www.apollotechnical.com/working-from-home-productivi... .

Obviously there would need to be a balance between determining roadmap for your own needs, and building something to more broadly appeal to use in the outside world, but getting to influence that without creating a fork is still huge.

And that's without the other considerations of the acquihire aspect.

Not sure the security mechanics involved that allow for it, but it seemed like a very neat product for this very thing (and I've added requesting access to the death checklist I gave to my wife), since it means I'm not having to provide my password to anyone (or even get it out of my head and enclose it somewhere physical), but my wife can still get access to it in the event of my death (or my being incapacitated for a sufficiently long period of time that she needs it).

That said, I think he just means "do the work to get tests in place, and build the habit of running them as part of your development cycle", even if, when starting, what you're running isn't helpful. The idea being that building "write a test" "run the tests" into your iterative loop, from the beginning, is a worthwhile practice.

This is an excuse. But, interestingly, it was an excuse for 2% of the people they investigated.

So apparently being a poor performer at Equifax, but NOT moonlighting, is not a fireable offense, since the other 98% weren't let go. Or they were, and this is just a propaganda piece in service to corporations (it is Business Insider after all). Either way, I feel, not exactly a great look for Equifax (like they have ever looked good), since either way it's still a waste of man hours spent to justify firing people they wanted to fire anyway.

Which is an interesting admission on Equifax's part. An investigation of over 1000, including interviews and the like, literally thousands of man hours...to find 24 people who had jobs on the side, but whose performance wasn't poor enough to warrant being let go in and of itself.

Tells you something about Equifax's priorities.

Not true; if housing prices continue to increase, then even without rent it becomes a reasonable investment. But that's just it; people need a place to live, so with housing becoming harder to purchase due to higher competition, more people end up renting, becoming this negative feedback loop.

>> Moreover the reason why more housing has become investments is because capital costs of the housing market has increased. If local governments and fiscal policy try to make housing prices increase forever, then eventually house capital costs become high enough that only corporations or co-ops can own them.

So local government and zoning can be part of the issue, sure, but again, 1/4 of the homes sold in the past year were to institutional investors looking to rent them out. Those homes -could- have gone to a family; instead they became rental units. Relevant when we are talking about home ownership.

As to fiscal policy, I sort of agree with you, but not quite. It's less fiscal policy (after all, both a potential homeowner and a business can float a loan), but the scale at play. An investment company can get millions loaned out to them just by dint of being a business with cashflow, and so can pay well over appraisal. Homeowners can't; the loan there is made on the basis of the property as collateral. That innately means they're not competing on a fair footing.