It is also true that something that's nice and convenient isn't a necessity, either.

I fully agree that it's nice.
I fully agree that it's convenient.
It requires a fair amount of self-discipline; there are some employees that can handle that, and some that cannot.

Ideally, a company would evaluate you on your performance & productivity, not where you're sitting.

It's still not "a necessity" that's bullshit hyperbole.

It's not unreasonable in and of itself.

The question is how it will be applied. Is it going to be just random bias against LLM assistance, or is it just going to be reasonable code quality standards? (Which ... should have been in place anyway?).

Scratch a liberal and you always, always find an absolute fascist.

We MUST contribute to the greater good, you say? There is no opt-out? Or else what?

And we all know who gets to decide what is the greater good, right?
Certainly not that ridiculous "democracy" that would vote against electric cars.

That's unusually bad, even for a year ago, but FSD has improved enormously since then. There were some huge updates around ~August that made it go from "Workable, but you have to watch it like a hawk" to "Really quite good, though still needs light supervision". I use FSD all the time and almost never have to intervene. It even passes the wife test now, meaning she uses it nearly all of the time, too, and I'd have said that would never happen.

OTOH, I used Waymo all last week for commuting around the bay area, and it was nearly flawless. There was one time it seemed to get confused because there was an emergency and there were sirens coming from multiple directions but none of the emergency vehicles could be seen. Apparently Waymo uses external microphones to listen for sirens. Anyway, it kind of stopped partway through a left turn through an intersection. It wasn't dangerous; all the human drivers were also slowing/stopping while trying to figure out where the emergency vehicles were, but it would have been better to continue through the intersection, then pull over. After about five seconds of hesitation, the Waymo did exactly that, but I'd have done it without the hesitation.

Neither does an EV. After 8 years an EV's battery pack will have degraded a little; perhaps it'll only have 85-90% of the range that it had when new (the 8-year warranty generally guarantees 80%). But the degradation curve is actually front-loaded; you lose the largest amount of range in the first year, less in the second, and so on. By the time it's 20 years old it will probably only have 75% of the range it had new. At 30 years, 70%, and so on.

Barring some manufacturing problem or catastrophic event, an EV battery should continue functioning long after an ICEV will need an engine replacement. The ICEV will maintain roughly its original range until it fails while the EV will lose a little range, but the EV will last longer.

As a driver of an EV, I disagree. I'd appreciate it if the PHEV (and EV!) drivers moved their vehicles when they are full, but as long as they're actively charging I don't see a problem with it. I suppose if the chargers are oversubscribed I'd appreciate PHEV drivers leaving them for the EVs, but that just means more chargers should be installed.

Hotels should just make them free, but room key-activated, so only guests can use them. And, of course, they need to install enough that they aren't oversubscribed.

If you're doing a road trip in an EV, being able to charge overnight while you're sleeping (just like at home) is marvelous. When I'm road-tripping I try to stay only at hotels with free chargers. There are actually plenty of them, at least in the US, so I succeed in staying at a place with a charger about 90% of the time.

Being able to charge overnight and start the day with a 100% charge means that I generally don't have to charge except during lunch and dinner, which means I can drive several hundred miles per day but spend zero time waiting for charging. I just have to make sure I stay at a hotel with a level 2 charger and eat lunch and dinner at places near superchargers. Not starting the day at 100% changes the dynamics significantly, requiring two quick supercharger stops for partial charges in the morning (if you're trying to minimize time spent charging, you only charge to about 60%, which takes about 20 minutes, vs an hour to get to 100%).

... How working in an office was the standard for centuries but somehow in the last 5 years has become a necessity.

I don't think "US tech" is really the problem here:

The target has relatives back in China. China says play ball, or your sister gets it.

The entire place is a swampy echo chamber.

Paid for by taxpayer dollars. Oh, and the public funding drives.
(which of these is "the most important" depends on who's begging in front of whom) ...oh and $2.5 million per state? So a flat $125 mill annually?

"The commission's decision to drop PBS membership is a blow to Arkansans who will lose free, over the air access to quality PBS programming they know and love,"
IT'S CLEARLY NOT FREE.

Now who can argue with that? - I think we're all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. - I'm particularly glad that these lovely children were here today to hear that speech. - Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age!

US Solicitor General John Sauer disagrees.

In the oral arguments for Trump v Slaughter, on Monday, Sauer said this isn't true when Justice Kagan pushed him on it. She said that the Founders clearly intended to have a separation of powers, to which he basically said "Yeah, but with the caveat that they created the 'unitary executive'", by which he seemed to mean that they intended the president to be able to do pretty much anything.

Kagan responded with a nuanced argument about how we have long allowed Congress to delegate limited legislative and judicial functions to the executive branch in the way we allow Congress to delegate the power to create and evaluate federal rules to executive-branch agencies, but that that strategy rests on a "deal" that both limits the scope of said rulemaking and evaluative functions and isolates them to the designated agency. She said that breaking that isolation by allowing the president detailed control over those functions abrogated and invalidated the deal, unconstitutionally concentrating power in ways that were clearly not intended by the Founders.

Sauer disagreed. I'll stop describing the discussion here and invite you to listen to it. The discussion is both fascinating and very accessible, and the linked clip is less than seven minutes long.

The court seems poised to take Sauer's view, which I think is clearly wrong. If they do, it's going to come back and bite conservatives hard when we get an active liberal president, as we inevitably will someday if the Trump administration fails to end democracy in the US.

What's very sad is that we already went through all of this and learned these lessons 150 years ago. After 100 years of experience with a thoroughly-politicized executive branch, we passed the Pentleton Civil Service Reform act in 1883 specifically to insulate most civil servants from presidential interference. Various other laws have subsequently been passed to create protections for federal workers and to establish high-level positions that are explicitly protected from the president. SCOTUS seems bent on overturning all of that and returning us to the pre-Pendleton era.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and it's looking we're gonna repeat a lot of bad history before we re-learn those 19th-century lessons.

Junior Exec flying out a high-rise window.