We have a pretty simple way of working - our work is split into projects for clients, and each project runs for a fixed number of days and has a deadline, a report must be submitted by the last day, and the report is done using an online reporting system that i helped write so i can see exactly when a report was submitted.

Cross referencing the report submission dates, the report deadline dates and the in-office schedule showed that 3% of reports were submitted late when the staff worked from home, and 74% were submitted late when they were office based. Our office was a terrible working environment with cheap broken chairs, poor climate control, slow flakey internet and lots of distractions all day long.

Still these cold hard facts didn't stop them mandating one day a week in office, which massively increased the number of delayed reports.

Why do you need to send a message to schedule a video call to ask a question?
Why not just use the message to ask the question?

I have several colleagues who want to schedule meetings to ask questions, and 99% of the time the answer is "i dont have that information to hand, i will have to look it up and get back to you". If they had asked the question at the start i probably would have been able to look up the answer before the video call was even scheduled.

A hybrid setup loses most of the benefits of remote.
You still have to live within proximity of the office, where housing costs tend to be higher.
You still need to maintain a car if you drive, you only save 2 days worth of gas but all the other maintenance costs remain.
If you take the train 3 single day tickets tends to be only marginally cheaper than a 5 day/weekly ticket.

Really fully remote is the way to go for any compatible job. It's good for employees, good for employers and good for the environment. The only ones that lose are commercial real estate, and they should convert those useless office spaces into residential properties to help solve the housing crisis affecting so many countries.

Easy...

Pick a 9th city where none of you are, and open an expensive office there in the middle of the business district where there is no residential housing for miles around.
Then force everyone to move to the area surrounding that city, and spend 2 hours a day commuting into that city.
Employees lose, company loses, but at least the owner of that expensive office complex gets an extra tenant full of unhappy people.

Don't call him, send him a message and wait until it's convenient to reply.
I was that "often relied on" guy in an office environment, and i spent so much of my day helping other people that i often couldn't get my own work done. Also people would tend to come to me first without trying to solve the problem themselves first.

Now people email or send me a message when they need help, and i reply to them when i take a break from my other work. It's a much better balance, and the wait time prompts people to try solving the problem themselves - often successfully.

Do you live on a remote farm in the countryside?
If not, try meeting your neighbors. Go to local small businesses where you can chat to the staff, go to the local public house and family restaurants etc, assuming they still exist, go to church or other place of worship if you're into that. It's these long commutes where people only come home tired to sleep that destroyed local communities.

Having someone office based join online meetings is the worst... Constant background noise disturbing all the other participants.

Exactly this. Periodic meetups so you can get to know people in a social setting works a LOT better.
Forced daily commuting is draining and soul destroying, and most offices are not located where people can live nearby and walk to work.

There are two "opposing" factions to give people the illusion of choice. They are perfectly happy to share power with each other in order to maintain the status quo, they know that if they get voted out it will always be their buddies across the aisle who get voted in and not someone radically different. And they know that when the other side does something unpopular it will be their turn again.

All anyone is asking is that cancelling is just as easy as subscribing.

A significant part is because they are behind with the rollout of IPv6, especially compared to nearby countries like India and China.

Pakistan has 22 legacy IPv4 addresses per 1000 citizens in the country and as usual those won't be evenly distributed with many used for servers etc. The end result of this is heavy address sharing via CGNAT and similar mechanisms which increases costs while introducing bottlenecks and reliability problems. With low deployment of IPv6 (PTCL has none, some of the other operators do) everything has to go through CGNAT.

Western countries generally don't have this problem because legacy IPv4 is heavily skewed in favor of those countries which got their allocations first, and many are well on their way deploying v6 too.
India and China have much less of a problem because most of their users have IPv6, and most large sites support IPv6 so the amount of traffic subject to NAT is much lower.

What "ruling class" refers to is the fact that while you can vote, you can only vote for members of the ruling class. Sure they might appear to represent different parties, but fundamentally they are members of the same club and want to maintain the status quo.

That's the security industry all over. Make the strongest links even stronger and more prominent, shouting about it from the rooftops while leaving the weak links that an attacker is actually going to target just the same as they always were.

The fragmentation is a big (and new) problem. Back in the days of VHS and DVD even if the physical media was produced by multiple studios/distributors, retailers could stock any of them. And generally if a retailer or a rental house like blockbuster didn't have the particular movie you wanted, they could get it on request.

Something else that's relatively new is global communication. In the days of VHS movies would be released at different times in different locations, but most people wouldn't regularly communicate with others in different versions so they usually weren't aware of new movies until they were released locally. Those people who did communicate cross region were generally travellers, and they could buy a VHS wherever they happened to be and take it back with them.

Now people are exposed to spoilers online, often long before a movie is available to them via any means other than piracy, which destroys their enjoyment of the movie and provides pressure on them amongst their peers.

Movie studios need to wake up to the modern reality - instant global communications, and instant global distribution. If a movie becomes available at the same time on every service globally there is very little incentive for piracy as it's simply more convenient to use the streaming services.

Advertising of the media, and peer pressure drives users to consume the media, and this is all by design.

Advertising and peer pressure is now global and ubiquitous, but availability of the actual media is not. I will frequently see advertisements for something, or people discussing something which is simply not available to rent or purchase here.
So i'm left with an artificially created demand, and an intentionally created feeling of missing out, which cannot be satisfied any legal way.
If the media becomes available later, then my enjoyment of it is severely diminished because i've been exposed to numerous spoilers during the delay.

It's even worse for kids. Kids who haven't seen the latest content will often be bullied or denigrated by their peers.

The media companies want to try and use these strong arm tactics to force people to pay for the content, but in many cases people are not allowed to pay for the content while still being subjected to these tactics.