If there is anything that can actually get a tech worker unionization effort going, it's going to be the back and forth on these RTO policies.
Folks have tried in the past around non-competes, or equity tomfoolery, but this is people's lives, family, kids schooling, etc. We know WFH works, if you spend the time to make it work, and upsetting folks lives doesn't make for positive employee relations.
> If there is anything that can actually get a tech worker unionization effort going, it's going to be the back and forth on these RTO policies.
I have nothing to add, but I wanted to say this is a really good point. If nothing else could persuade me to join or help create a union, it would be these brain-damaged RTO initiatives.
It's simple. All the "Big Brains" missed the real risks of Web 1.0/Web 2.0, focusing only on the positives in a time of hope and economic growth. Now, we have an internet that focuses on how everything is terrible, and a new tech abruptly hits the scene. Of course, the current "Big Brains" meet the clout need to point out how the sky might fall.
AI will be transformative, but it's more likely to follow previous transformations. Unintended consequences, sure, but largely an increase in the standard of living, productivity, and economic opportunity.
Honestly, as someone who does this, Bard seems to be much better at writing natural emails. It's just easier to dump some thoughts in to bard and ask it to redraft, then fluff it a little to sound like me.
If you have a disease that causes organ damage, it's not that ridiculous. Look at the referenced studies. Multiple studies by different organizations performed 6-12 months out showing persistent fatigue, body aches, headaches, cognitive issues, loss of taste/smell, kidney function. Seems to be a real phenomenon.
This is my knee jerk reaction, but then I ask myself if I really want Trump (or Pelosi depending on your political persuasion) deciding how my search engine and social networks work.
Feeling a big "NOPE" on that one.
Customers need to make it unacceptable for FAANG to act this way... Good luck on that tho.
Unfortunately, they have been very good at slowly raising the temperature so the frog (read:us) doesn't jump out of the pot.
"Quality Federal Health Insurance for all" = yes
"Medicare for all" = Terrible idea
Medicare is insufficient coverage. Almost all folks on Medicare need supplemental insurance, or a state plan to actually get the care they need. Medicare under pays on claims, typically under the costs of providing care. Every industry group, union, medical association, who has looked at all the various plans has said it would lead to more hospital bankruptcies, particularly in rural areas.
Now, if you want to break the current system and force a government take over of the whole system it's not a bad idea, but selling it as something that would give folks the care they need is very disingenuous.
Medicare for All isn’t an extension of existing Medicare benefits to everyone, it’s an expansion of those benefits,
for everyone, under a single-payer system.
You didn't understand what the person you replied to said, and he's right.
Medicare is NOT good insurance. Its reimbursement rates for hospitals is lower than their costs, and it doesn't fully cover people, it only covers 80%.
Like the person you replied to said: Most people on Medicare need to buy supplemental private insurance - it's called Medicare Advantage, and it may be government funded.
We need good insurance, and Medicare is NOT good insurance.
They clearly did understand what they said. The "Medicare for All" proposals do not simply extend existing Medicare benefits to everyone, they also expand what Medicare covers for the people it covers.
I understood perfectly and they and you are both incorrect. Medicare for All is not Medicare, it expands and closes the gaps in coverage under the current regime using a single payer system (which is not even really a form of “insurance” to begin with).
Personally, I think that Gab is a dumpster fire that it's best to avoid, yet I am very sensitive to browsers making content/editorial decisions for their users. From a security perspective teaching users to jump around browser protections is never a good idea. It's going to bite us in the butt at some point.
