After two decades of bidding wars and job hopping, managers have realized that training your employees just benefits the next company (competitor). So everyone resorts to paying top $$$ for talent that exactly matches the current need. Full-time employment has turned into a chain of 6mo contracts.

It will take another decade or so with no career mobility to get back to long-term employment with training, if things don't get completely offshored.

That's exactly it, from a highly visible corporation.

CEOs are fearful for their jobs if they don't demonstrate progress towards adopting AI and keeping up with the times. We will be seeing a lot of "AI driven efficiency" signaling from executives to keep investors and the board happy.

It is interesting to observe how the narrative for the same process is different in the US and Europe.
In Europe, the talk is all about how AI is going to make workers more productive and relieve them from tedious work, but not a whiff of layoffs.
In the US, the talk is all about cutting jobs and increasing profitability.

What you say is true - it's common sense. And is also common sense for the JPM management.
The fact that they know this and still press hard with RTO means there are other forces at play which we don't see.
Maybe the company is ok with all office employees quitting? Who actually generates the business? - maybe a bunch of servers and top-level political connections? Maybe the in-office employees are just for customer service? Maybe super capable in-office employee is simply not set up to generate value due to org structure, and therefore it doesn't matter how talented. Maybe as long as the phones are manned from 9-5 that's all that is needed. Who knows....

Become an employer of at least 15 people and see how this goes.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eeoc.gov%2Foverview

Yeah, tell that to the NBA.

Sounds like your definition of meritocracy is nepotism, and you want to fight nepotism with reverse discrimination - good luck.

Knowing low-level stuff first makes it much easier to understand high-level concepts otherwise everything turns into rote memorization and cargo-cult.

Start with C (without the oddities) and computer architecture. Throw in some assembly to bridge the understanding between comp arch and C.
Then learn higher level abstractions through an imperative and a functional language. A "computer languages" course helps to bridge the syntactic sugar/high-level abstractions with low-level C.

The rest is operating systems, networks, advanced algorithms and data structures.

Not sure if this was posted as anti or pro Trump, but is a good exercise in reading comprehension - it can be on an SAT test.

According to this text:
What does Trump think of the H1b program?
a) abused to substitute American workers with lower-pay foreigners
b) used for temporary low-skilled workers at Disney parks
c) is a highly-skilled immigration program
d) used for illegal immigrants to obtain legal status

What happened at Disney?
a) jobs were eliminated and workers were laid off
b) American workers were replaced with H1b workers
c) visitors got a refund when it rained
d) all workers at Disney are from India

What is Trump committed to?
a) eliminate the rampant abuse of the H1b program
b) end the H1b program
c) end the hiring at Disney
d) use H1b as cheap labor program

Exactly. If they salted every entry, then they won't be able to tell password reuse.
Maybe they store everything in plain text, because it's easier for the Jupiter Notebooks this way?

PMs should salt every entry. They should not be able to tell if I'm reusing passwords. Being able to look at the database and tell password reuse, is an attack vector when the database inevitably leaks. If they collected the stats on the device, then this device is too chatty for my taste.

I suspect a large portion of the buyers were wanna-be social media influencers who ended up returning the device after their Vision Pro youtube video made $7.68 and they needed money for groceries.

Do open-source projects have the same organizational dynamics as typical businesses - schedules, scope and budget requirements?
Hint: Open-source projects are "best effort" activities that sometimes produce business valuable results.

Actually it does back up reality.

If you want a "woke" marketing VP, you hire from Harvard. If you hire from a second-tier uni you may or may not get a "woke" marketing VP.
The executives at BUD knew exactly what they were doing. Just because you disagree with the direction doesn't mean the marketing VP was a hiring mistake.

Publicly hosted ChatGPT will certainly get banned. But it's a big productivity boost not to host one privately.

This will further strengthen the case for "in-office work". Employers will want to put an air-gap around their data.

I agree with some of the points, but not necessarily with the conclusion.

Yes, some employees value remote work, but not all and not always the best ones. In a lot of cases the remote work was an economic decision - get FAANG pay, work from a cheap location. No commute is definitely a big plus and considerably improves quality of life.
But there is also a downside to remote work - less learning, less creativity, less bonding and networking. It may not immediately become apparent, but over several years it does accumulate.
It is unclear what "the best" employees value - some may value remote work, but very likely they value more a creative and stimulating environment, where they brainstorm challenging problems with smart colleagues, and generally be surrounded by like-minded people.

People young in their career don't do every well remotely. But they also won't do very well in the office if all of the experienced people are remote. And nobody wants to waste time going to an office only to do Zoom meetings with remote people.
So we'll be back to on in-office or fully remote setup.
Unless of course it's a single-person or non-creative type of work, which is an entirely different organizational thing (an accountant can work the books from enywhere, for example).

They could have put the money in US T-bills (1-6 mo duration) instead of 10-year T-bonds and not have this liquidity issue.
They knew their depositors (SV start-ups) had a substantial burn rate (which means outflows), but chose to park the money in long-term T-bonds. It's beyond me to understand the stupidity.
I also don't understand the stupidity of the depositors - CFO/Treasury should have known better than to leave the company treasury in a bank account. After all, they need to sign an acknowledgement that the deposit is not FDIC insured - that ought to make you think at least a little bit.