When the regime can abduct and deport anyone without respect for legitimate independent judicial review where they can present evidence, democracy is absolutely gone. The only rule is the Dear Leader's whim.
If they can do it to any individual, they can do it to anyone, and "anyone" includes their opponents.
Yes, we have lived for many generations without these threats, but do not let Normalcy Bias blind us to the real and present danger. Democracies are often tipped into autocracy, and as with crossing the event horizon into a supermassive black hole, the particular moment of crossing may be barely noticeable, but the impending spaghettification is no less inevitable. If the balance of power in the three co-equal branches of government are replaced by one regime who ignores the others, the regime also ignores the people, by definition. The people will need to be become ungovernable to regain their sovereignty, or remain subjects of the regime and its whims.
Come on. There's always a way back. Or a way to something different. Human societies and governments reorganize all the time. Often with much sound and fury.
There is indeed always a way back, but that phrase is doing a LOT of heavy lifting!
Yes, people have overcome far worse authoritarian regimes.
But, remember: the cost to overcome authoritarians always goes up as a regime consolidates power.
An unconsolidated authoritarian regime can sometimes be voted out.
With some consolidation, toppling a regime may require "merely" weeks of protest by 5% of the entire population and general strikes that make the country ungovernable.
As the regime escalates, it may take full-on violent revolution with blood in the streets and govt buildings to restore the sovereignty of the citizens.
Sound and fury, indeed. This is not what any sane person wants. There is always a way back, but are you and everyone you know and love prepared to do whatever it takes to get it back? Or do you feel it is OK to trivialize the effort required because you think you have so much privilege you expect others to do the fighting?
Yes, there's ways of getting rid of dictatorships, but they tend to be unusual/extreme such as mass protests or revolts.
I did just see a news alert that the judge in the "deportation" (kidnapping) case is considering contempt of court for the Trump administration - will that work?
Across decades, I've heard of many cardiac events from shoveling the driveway, but absolutely zero from scraping ice off a car windshield. This correlates to the vast difference in effort required by each action — scooping, lifting and moving tons of snow, vs scraping at a few ounces of ice (which is even easier if you let the car run a few minutes with the windshield defrost on).
Now, if we had car (not trucks setup for plowing) that could automatically clear the driveway, that would be a must-have feature in areas with winter climates...
Anyone who can not see the obvious difference in substance, intent, scope, and scale is either willfully ignorant or seriously lacking in reading comprehension and reasoning skills.
Requesting curbs on rampant disinformation is not even close to the same thing as crashing the economy to extort our closest allies and major business and industry players.
Who are you to decide what is or isn't disinformation?
You can ask this question about any belief or position on a topic. We each decide for ourselves the answer and society decides this through its elected leaders and the judiciary. All societies regulate speech.
A request to not amplify disinformation is NOT censorship. A threat of legal or military action is.
Of course there are edge cases, but blatant and hard-debunked falsehoods such as "The earth is flat", "Contrails are chemical spraying", Russia did not attack Ukraine", "Vaccines cause autism", "Auschwitz and Dachau were not concentration camps where people were killed" are all disinformation, and they are disseminated for the very specific purpose of undermining trust and the capability of western societies to survive, for the purpose of implementing authoritarianism.
If you evidently expect a society to unilaterally disarm and do nothing, you are part of the problem.
There is also a reason tariffs only get raised on a multi-generational time scale, e.g., 1820s, 1890s, 1930s, 2020s.
The effects are so bad that nearly everyone who remembers the disaster must have died off for anyone to think it is a good idea.
At this point, it is obvious that there is no geo-political or geo-strategic plan of any type. The administration is just winging it, and Sen Murphy's explanation is the only one available.
It was also noted that the person occupying the president's chair said "they must be forced to negotiate". When someone is forced to negotiate, that is not a negotiation, that is extortion. Welcome to another nation run like a mob office.
Nice example, but not everything is like automobiles where probably not even one in 1000 people has ever been to a track day let alone actually raced a car, but sporty marques are desired.
A very large portion of people actually cares about what they are searching for, and want the ability to ACTUALLY search and find that, with real parameters, not merely get some not-even-close stuff shoved onto their screen instead. That is NOT the serendipity of browsing the stacks in a great library.
A great example of failure is Amazon. I run a small design & manufacturing business, and years ago started getting pestered by Amazon about "Amazon Business" trying to supply both office staples and parts to businesses. This was an area that had enormous potential. Yet, they have entirely failed. I've never bought a single item, and it has faded.
Their primary competitor is McMaster-Carr [0] who does it right. Well-defined categories of everything, and highly specific search capabilities, at reasonable but not bargain prices. EVERYTHING you might search for is fully parameterized in every dimension and feature. Min/max/exact, width/depth/height/thread/diameter/material/containerType/etc./etc./etc. appropriate for each type of product. The key is McMaster DOES NOT WASTE MY TIME. I can go there, quickly find what I want or determine that they don't have it, and get on with my day.
The smaller company that does it right is still beating the tech giant a decade later. Same for other similar suppliers who actually have a clue about what their customers really want.
They continue to prevail over tech giants and VC-funded sites BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT STUPID.
It would be nice if the tech/vc crowd would also stop being stupid. They started out not stupid, but they really lose the plot when they think a few extra eyeballs this week will really win in the long run. At least provide two modes, a strict and serious search and their new messy UI. But they are stupid and this will not happen. Enshittification rules the day.
The thing that really pissed me off about Amazon Business is that they bought Small Parts and killed it off. Small Parts was a tiny version of McMaster-Carr that specialized in fasteners, small diameter fluid handling, short sections of specialty materials, and in general, quality "small parts."
If I bought directly from Small Parts, I knew I'd get exactly what I wanted. Ordering from Amazon Business? A complete crapshoot.
Going to www.smallparts.com now just redirects to an Amazon 404 page!
I've long wondered why Amazon made it harder to buy products from them, why they've decreased the [customer] value of their search, decreased the value of the filters, decreased the value of the reviews...
I mean the answer has to be "they make more money this way" but for me it's means I groan internally before going to Amazon because finding the product I want will be almost impossible - it's even hard if I already visited and already found what I wanted to buy, finding it again, near impossible. Not even basics like search by product manufacturer actually work.
I've worked for a large e-commerce company, and you're right, search is very important - to the point where effective search was one of the main focuses of the company's development. They had a clear correlation between revenue and how good/relevant the search results were, so they focused on that. Doing what seems like the complete opposite is a... choice.
I don't use amazon, but I use AWS every day of my life and I see similar-ish decisions made there in the console UI (although admittedly it has gotten a little better) - like, why are you seemingly making this purposely difficult? There's no way this benefits you.
>> search is very important - to the point where effective search was one of the main focuses of the company's development.
THIS is what I really do not get.
Of course N=[small_numbers_somewhat_selective], but I have never encountered anyone who wanted anything other than good search. I have only ever heard complaints about the messy Amazon-style searches. In decades I have NEVER heard or seen a written comment about someone finding something great that 'just popped up' in an otherwise failed search. No one likes sloppy search or finds it anything but a waste of time and actually drives them away from the site.
Yet, clearly the search-enshittifiers have some data or usage pattern information indicating it works for them, or they wouldn't keep doing it. Does anyone know what this data might be?
I also don't know why they couldn't do both. Present the sloppy-search but have a small button to switch over to strict search (or even better, a McMaster-style search). I fail to see how that wouldn't be better, since I and everyone I know now actively work avoid Amazon and the like rather than work to try to find stuff in their shitty search. I came originally because it was easy to find stuff. Now, it is hard so I'm elsewhere
I suspect, this is just my personal opinion, doesn’t reflect any of my former or current employers opinions, the Amazon makes a lot of money based on ad revenue. I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence that they’re killing it on the online retail front.
there have been many e-commerce players that have come in to the gap there and specialize in these “niche” products or services that deliver fast as Amazon and it isn’t hard to do so if you’re willing to invest. i would not personally be surprised if amazon saw long term growth loss in their e-commerce sector, especially given the competetion from other retailers that have adjusted - like walmart and target.
That would make sense as to why they insist on making search worse — keep you in the doom loop to show more promoted products and collect more pennies from the promotion, even if you end up going and purchasing somewhere else. Same Prime subscriptions, as long as they keep you coming back just enough to keep re-subscribing, they collect $130 or whatever per year.
I had noticed a while ago I was using Amazon in a way analogous to 'showrooming'. When Amazon came on the scene, people would look in the brick&mortar stores to see what goods they liked, then buy cheaper on Amazon. I had now unconsciously started using Amazon to do a broad survey search before purchasing somewhere else. OFC, when their search tool really enshittified, haven't been there much.
> console UI (although admittedly it has gotten a little better) - like, why are you seemingly making this purposely difficult? There's no way this benefits you.
My secret suspicion is that AWS wants everyone to use APIs and deliberately enshittify's the console
>>went from productive work (someone paying them to do it) to unproductive work.
Umm, that is literally wrong, by your own definition.
>>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art.
I.e., they went from an employer paying them to do work to a variety of clients/customers paying them to do different work of nearly the same value.
OFC, if everyone did it, the price of art might decline. Or demand might go up. Or both, or neither. We don't know. But either way, the example subject did NOT convert from productive to unproductive work.
Good qstn. The phrasing does leave room for ambiguity, but "make revenue close to" certainly indicates meaning closer to "$X from old job ~= $Y from art-gig"
>>work something different and still make revenue close to what they earned on their job by selling art
This could be largely solved by letting job seekers know up front that it WILL require an in-person interview, even if the position is remote — and then doing it. The price of a few round-trip airfares & hotel nights is trivial to the cost/benefit of a successful hire vs giving access to a malicious actor. And bringing in the final 2-4 candidates for an in-person day or two without technology has real benefits.
Want to add tech to the mix? Give the hired ones in-person a device to take home that will need to be verifiably at their stated location. Also require confirmation they are located where they say they are located, maybe even hire a PI to verify. And yes, traveling digital nomads could be accommodated; "I'll be in Bali the next month"; "fine, just send us a pic of your passport stamp and the location device will confirm it". Yes, it is a bit of light surveillance, you are paying for work and basic honesty and verifiability is not too big of an ask.
Sure, some of that could be fooled by working with an accomplice, but it would certainly cut down the fakers by orders of magnitude, and the NKs by ~100%.
Fine. You are free to obfuscate and/or lie about your identity and location, and they are free to hire or not hire you.
Who said anything about install? They give you a company phone.
And you really think it is unreasonable for a person/company paying you money to do a task to know where on the planet you are located, emergency contacts, etc.? What happens when you get hit by a bus in Bangkok or have a scuba incident in Bali and are in the hospital for a week or worse? You just go dark and they have no way to send aid or even get status on the work you are now suddenly not doing, or obtain the current files so someone else can make progress?
Of course there are many inconsequential gigs/jobs for which it doesn't matter if you disappear, or lie about your identity or location, or are a North Korean spy trying to destroy the company, and you're welcome to work for those.
But I'm 100% in favor of remote work, and I would not remotely consider hiring someone for any consequential project or position without knowing they are who they say they are and they are where they say they are located.
And from a Corporate and National Security perspective, while I consider Return To Office largely outrageous, it seems quite reasonable for simple physical security measures to verify an employee is who and where they say they are.
Even more so considering the massive amounts of both nation-state-level corporate espionage and remote work fraud going on.
All of your examples fall under business continuity or ownership.
I can fall into a coma in the US. If your business depends on “being able to send aid”, then you have failed as a business.
If I am not delivering work output, terminate me.
My employer is entitled to my work output for compensation, no more, no less. The rest is an unwarranted intrusion into the rest of my life.
You are of course correct, they are free to not hire me, as I am free to not work there.
“Install” - you describe a device that reports my location, and described being required to take that with me so they could know / verify said location. That is so beyond the pale.
“Oh you said you were in Bali last week? Passport please so we can verify.”
What next? Do I need to send my after visit summaries from my doctor to HR, too?
It seems we are talking about two different things, gig work vs employment. Also, talking about the entire company team, not just about you.
>>My employer is entitled to my work output for compensation, no more, no less.
Of course that is true if you are working on a contractor or gig basis. The spec is for "Qty X of Y widgets, with software doing Z, delivered in July to our office in Cupertino", and you have no access to their offices or systems. Working basically incognito is fine, as long as comms are maintained for reasonable updates and you deliver as, where, and when specified.
But if you are both taking on the obligations of an employer-employee relationship, including benefits, legal obligations, access to company systems & offices, use of company equipment, etc., it is not only reasonable to know you are who you say you are and where you say you are, it is the managers' responsibility to know.
If your CEO comes to ask about and engineering issue on Project Sigma, and your report "Joe" is responsible, but you haven't heard from "Joe" in a week, and the last you knew he was flying to Australia, but you can't say if "Joe" is working in Sydney, beaching in Bali, or selling secrets in Shanghai to a Chinese competitor, and you don't even really know who "Joe" is, it seems you have not only dropped the ball but lost the plot. And probably your management job.
>>If your business depends on “being able to send aid”, then you have failed as a business.
Of course it is a mgt failure to structure your org with a single point of failure. But if an employee has responsibilities so trivial it makes no difference if they suddenly disappear, why were they even on payroll?
Why is it unreasonable to expect an employee to take care of themselves and company laptop/phone/etc., and be in reliable and honest contact so if something does happen, you can take steps to help, such as knowing where to send a replacement laptop or updated team info?
>>If I am not delivering work output, terminate me.
Of course, but the context here is dishonest employees stealing corporate secrets for enemy nation-states or stealing payroll until they are found out.
The costs of secret stealing can easily be company bankruptcy and unemployment for every other employee, and national security breaches.
The costs to bogus employees or dishonest 'overworkers'[0] stealing payroll until they are found out is beyond just stolen paychecks, it's also the overhead and lack of progress for the rest of the team.
More generally, it's important for remote work options to thrive, and if the basis is "F.U., you can't even know who or where I am, don't pay me if you don't like it.", almost all employers will make their policy: "sit your butt in this specific office chair 9-5 M-F". I'm a strong advocate of remote work, and have sat in the employer's chair many times, but if those are the only two options, my only choice is RTO.
>>required to take that with me so they could know / verify said location. That is so beyond the pale.
I disagree. This is not like monitoring cameras/microphones/keystrokes (even 'tho similar monitoring in an office is trivial by walking to someone's cubicle). But to claim that your employer or manager (not gig-work contract mgr) can not even know what hemisphere or time zone you are in seems absurd. And no, daily "were you really at the Dr.?" stuff isn't the point of my solution either. I am literally saying only that you should be verifiably open about who you are and where you are on an every-few-days basis.
So, in the context of corporate/international espionage and dishonest employees and agencies stealing everything from the company jewels to payroll, what solution do YOU have that makes remote work viable? That's a serious question.
.
.
.
[0] I've got no problem with people who remotely 'overwork' two remote jobs if they can honestly keep up with their responsibilities for both. I have a big problem with people taking on more paychecks than they possibly can and just riding it until they are terminated, or "agencies" dishonestly posing as a single employee. Both are fine if everyone fully and transparently understands the situation, but fundamentally dishonest if done with deception. Just like open honest polyamory is fine, but cheating on your spouse is not.
Ordinarily, trust is earned in drops and lost by the barrel.
However, in the last eleven weeks, the current administration has sunk and destroyed supertanker-loads of trust in The United States Of America, and in every field including defense, security, health, science, academics, political, economic, and anything you can think of.
Even if the goals are good, the way they are being implemented is insanely stupid and damaging to everyone involved. (And I mean stupid in Cipolla's formal definition [0] of actions that harm both others and yourself.)
Any rational non-American person will not consider the US to be a reliable trustworthy partner in any venture. They may do deals at arms-length, but never again as a trusted partner.
Even if the policies are 100% reversed, the uncertainty will linger. Will international students really trust they won't be disappeared into a Central American prison if they say the wrong thing on social media? Will businesses really make a major capital investments when random tariffs may be added or removed on any day? Will allies really trust we will be there to defend them as they have come to our aid every time? A key part of trust is certainty, and uncertainty alone is deadly to relationships.[Edit: added this paragraph for clarity]
Much of America's prosperity was based on the tacit assumption of goodwill.
That is GONE.
If it is ever rebuilt, it will take not years or decades, but generations.
When the regime can abduct and deport anyone without respect for legitimate independent judicial review where they can present evidence, democracy is absolutely gone. The only rule is the Dear Leader's whim.
If they can do it to any individual, they can do it to anyone, and "anyone" includes their opponents.
Yes, we have lived for many generations without these threats, but do not let Normalcy Bias blind us to the real and present danger. Democracies are often tipped into autocracy, and as with crossing the event horizon into a supermassive black hole, the particular moment of crossing may be barely noticeable, but the impending spaghettification is no less inevitable. If the balance of power in the three co-equal branches of government are replaced by one regime who ignores the others, the regime also ignores the people, by definition. The people will need to be become ungovernable to regain their sovereignty, or remain subjects of the regime and its whims.
[edit: typos]
reply