Is it "a simple comma"? Or is it a very intentional comma? The courts debating commas, at least in circumstances of this sort, strikes me as a particularly farcical consequence of modern justice systems.
Can't we ask legislators to clarify their own legislation?
The courts interpretation is pretty clearly the correct one. The title is laying it on a little thick as Apple very clearly tried to interpret the law in a way that favored them and then threw up a pretty shoddy defense to try to feign ignorance.
All debates leading to the laws are public with transcript available and it’s the EU so you have access to dozens of translation.
It’s not about a comma. It’s Apple trying to argue they can breach a law because look we might twist it if we mistreat despite the law being clear and on the way to be slapped in the face because there is nothing the EU hates more than companies trying to play clever tricks with legislation.
The only surprising thing is that Apple has still to understand that despite all the fines. Apple keeps acting like the EU is the US and lose most of the time. You have to wonder if they plainly refuse to hire good counsels or the American executives are just to proud to listen to them.
As someone who has spent 25+ years working with legislation and legislators in the US, to me the point is not whether the comma is the problem (to Apple) but rather that the law is the law. If the legislators wanted to do something other than what they did, they should have been more clear. If there was a mistake in the drafting, legislators can now fix it. But any fix will not be retroactive.
And in my experience, very few legislators would be able to tell you what they thought they were doing when that provision was drafted.
As to it being farcical, I wonder if this behavior of parsing grammar and punctuation is getting more common.
> As someone who has spent 25+ years working with legislation and legislators in the US, to me the point is not whether the comma is the problem (to Apple) but rather that the law is the law.
It is my understanding that this is a big difference between the US and the EU: the US leans heavily into textualism / literal interpretation, while the EU leans much more into purposivism / teleological interpretation.
While the purposivism approach has its own problems, it does seem to avoid a lot of shenanigans of the form "Well you didn't say we couldn't sell ground up orphans as soup."
There should be space for companies and people to make honest mistakes or misunderstandings and not get punished too harshly for it, but when a company like apple has their lawyers go over legal texts with a fine tooth comb to look for a single sentence that could be possibly interpreted in their advantage, knowing full well they are circumventing the intent of the law by doing so, I don't see an issue with telling them in no uncertain terms to knock it off.
> If the legislators wanted to do something other than what they did, they should have been more clear
Except for the fact that this mythical clarity simply doesn't exist, so no amount of want can create it. And to add more to the farce: the criteria the courts use aren't clear either
Yes, it does seem small, but the BEAM often has response times in microseconds (μs). If you are used to that and something 'blows out' to milliseconds, then I can see why alarms might get triggered.
If it's millions of calls and it's 15 additional milliseconds per call, that's going to spectacularly gum up a system that's tuned in microseconds. Even if there's no additional load, the queues all just got several thousand times longer.
This exchange made me think about how I've always been a fan of using the "natural" units of a system when reporting metrics.
I do this because it helps those unfamiliar with the system more intuitively understand relative sizes, those unfamiliar with converting between units in their head to understand numbers, and even for those familiar, it can avoid confusion or misattributed units.
this can easily happen in a BEAM system. say you have some shared state you want to access. you create a gen_server to protect this shared state. a gen_server is basically a huge mutex. the gen_server is just a normal beam process that handles requests sent to its message queue and then sends a reply message back. lets say it can process a request normally in 20us. so a 15ms pause would stack up 750 messages in its message queue. now maybe this is not enough to generate a huge outage on its own but maybe as part of your handling you are using the message queue in an unsafe way. so when you check the message queue for a message the BEAM will just search the whole message queue for a message that matches. there are certain patterns the BEAM is able to optimize to prevent the whole message queue being searched (i think almost every pattern is unsafe and the BEAM only optimizes the gen rpc style message patterns) . but if you are using an unsafe pattern when you have a message queue backlog it will destroy the throughput in the system because the time taken to process a message is a function of the message queue length and the message queue length becomes a function of how long it takes to process a message.
Also, the great thing is you might not even have an explicit `receive` statement in your gen_server code. You might just be using a library that is using a `receive` somewhere that is unsafe with a large message queue and now you are burned. The BEAM also added some alternative message queue thing so you are able to use this instead of the main message queue of a process which should be a lot safer but I think a lot of libraries still do not use this. This alternative is 'alias' (https://www.erlang.org/doc/system/ref_man_processes.html#pro...) which does something slightly different from what I thought which is to protect the queue from 'lost' messages. Without aliases 'timeouts' can end up causing the process message queue to be polluted with messages that are no longer being waited on. This can lead to the same problems with large message queues causing throughput of a process to drop. However, usually long lived processes will have a loop that handles messages in the queue.
> lets say it can process a request normally in 20us.
Then what if the OS/thread hangs? Or maybe a hardware issue even. Seems a bit weird to have critical path be blocked by a single mutex. That's a recipe for problems or am I missing something?
Hardware issues happen, but if you're lucky it's a simple failure and the box stops dead. Not much fun, but recovery can be quick and automated.
What's real trouble is when the hardware fault is like one of the 16 nic queues stopped, so most connections work, but not all (depends on the hash of the 4-tuple) or some bit in the ram failed and now you're hitting thousands of ECC correctable errors per second and your effective cpu capacity is down to 10% ... the system is now too slow to work properly, but manages to stay connected to dist and still attracts traffic it can't reasonably serve.
But OS/thread hangs are avoidable in my experience. If you run your beam system with very few OS processes, there's no reason for the OS to cause trouble.
But on the topic of a 15ms pause... it's likely that that pause is causally related to cascading pauses, it might be the beginning or the end or the middle... But when one thing slows down, others do too, and some processes can't recover when the backlog gets over a critical threshold which is kind of unknowable without experiencing it. WhatsApp had a couple of hacks to deal with this. A) Our gen_server aggregation framework used our hacky version of priority messages to let the worker determine the age of requests and drop them if they're too old. B) we had a hack to drop all messages in a process's mailbox through the introspection facilities and sometimes we automated that with cron... Very few processes can work through a mailbox with 1 million messages, dropping them all gets to recovery faster. C) we tweaked garbage collection to run less often when the mailbox was very large --- i think this is addressed by off-heap mailboxes now, but when GC looks through the mailbox every so many iterations and the mailbox is very large, it can drive an unrecoverable cycle as eventually GC time limits throughput below accumulation and you'll never catch up. D) we added process stats so we could see accumulation and drain rates and estimate time to drain / or if the process won't drain and built monitoring around that.
> we had a hack to drop all messages in a process's mailbox through the introspection facilities and sometimes we automated that with cron...
What happens to the messages? Do they get processed at a slower rate or on a subsystem that works in the background without having more messages being constantly added? Or do you just nuke them out of orbit and not care? That doesn't seem like a good idea to me since loss of information. Would love to know more about this!
Nuked; it's the only way to be sure. It's not that we didn't care about the messages in the queue, it's just there's too many of them, they can't be processed, and so into the bin they go. This strategy is more viable for reads and less viable for writes, and you shouldn't nuke the mnesia processes's queues, even when they're very backlogged ... you've got to find a way to put backpressure on those things --- maybe a flag to error out on writes before they're sent into the overlarge queue.
Mostly this is happening in the context of request/response. If you're a client and connect to the frontend you send a auth blob, and the frontend sends it to the auth daemon to check it out. If the auth daemon can't respond to the frontend in a reasonable time, the frontend will drop the client; so there's no point in the auth daemon looking at old messages. If it's developed a backlog so high it can't get it back, we failed and clients are having trouble connecting, but the fastest path to recovery is dropping all the current requests in progress and starting fresh.
In some scenarios even if the process knew it was backlogged and wanted to just accept messages one at a time and drop them, that's not fast enough to catch up to the backlog. The longer you're in unrecoverable backlog, the worse the backlog gets, because in addition to the regular load from clients waking up, you've also got all those clients that tried and failed going to retry. If the outage is long enough, you do get a bit of a drop off, because clients that can't connect don't send messages that require waking up other clients, but that effect isn't so big when you've only got a large backlog a few shards.
If the user client is well implemented either it or the user notices that an action didn't take effect and tries again, similar to what you would do if a phone call was disconnected unexpectedly or what most people would do if a clicked button didn't have the desired effect, i.e. click it repeatedly.
In many cases it's not a big problem if some traffic is wasted, compared to desperately trying to process exactly all of it in the correct order, which at times might degrade service for every user or bring the system down entirely.
Part of the problem with BEAM is it doesn't have great ways of dealing with concurrency beyond gen_server (effectively a mutex) and ETS tables (https://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/stdlib/ets). So I think usually the solution would be to use ETS if its possible which is kind of like a ConcurrentHashMap in other languages or to shard or replicate the shared state so it can be accessed in parallel. For read only data that does not change very often the BEAM also has persistent term (https://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/persistent_term.html).
Erlang makes a lot of hard things possible, some tricky things easy, and some easy things tricky.
There's no magic fairy dust. Just a lot of things that fit together in nice ways if you use them well, and blow up in predictable ways if you have learned how to predict the system.
Movies are overwhelmingly made _by_ American studios but I don't know if they are overwhelmingly _made_ (shot) in the US. It's very common to shoot in a location that gives tax incentives. E.g. Vancouver used to be (potentially still is) a common production location.
Vancouver and Toronto were very often used as stand-ins for shows based in places like Chicago, Seattle, NYC and many others. Might still be, but I barely consume that sort of media nowadays.
It made watching TV shows like Stargate SG1 additionally amusing though -- every planet they visited was basically some location near Vancouver. Me and friends used to joke about how much like carcinisation is a thing in evolution, in the Stargate universe all planets eventually ended up looking like British Columbia.
Iirc, either Carter or Daniel Jackson pretty much said something along those lines in one of the later seasons. Not the BC part specifically, but about why stargates were usually on planets pretty comfortable for humans.
But the overarching point is that even shows where at least one of the actors (RDA) were given an award by the US Air Force for their depiction of the branch, were largely filmed outside the US.
This title is pretty misleading (I appreciate it's basically the same as the article's title). He's not saying he'll fund the govt department, he's saying he'll fund a private venture made up of the people formerly employed in 18f. And he predicts that venture will be able to gouge the public purse when the govt inevitably realises the cuts they made were far too deep.
As others have pointed out, this is a deeply right-wing idea and exactly what the Republican party wants to see happen.
I don't really see how the final paragraph follows from the preceding text... They seem like they're from two different articles - one calling out toxic work culture and deification of fundamentally flawed and faceted people, the other basically the complete opposite?
"Grinding won't help you... unless you're so stubborn that you disregard the above warnings and grind so hard you break through to success"?
Seems like this is just another test the author thinks would-be entrepreneurs need to pass, rather than actual advice.
I think the point, however poorly made, was that the odds are against you but the only way to surmount them is to know that they're against you and not care. It's a matter of disillusionment, because much like the lottery alluded to earlier in the article there's a conflict between the narrative and the statistically likely outcomes.
>Seems like this is just another test the author thinks would-be entrepreneurs need to pass, rather than actual advice.
It can be both. It's a decision point - do you accept the toxicity and the extremely long odds in exchange for the potential upside of going from zero to generational wealth in a single IPO or buyout offer? Can you fail ten times and still sleep indoors and eat food or are you betting the rent on your meditation app being different from all the others?
In 2018 I did an Ironman triathlon. Across 2020 and 2021 I cycled over 20,000 miles. I cycled 200 miles on the hottest day of 2022 in the UK. In 2021 I cycled 200 miles in under 12 hours. In 2023 I ran over 10 half marathons. You simply cannot tell me I didn't completely realign my lifestyle or that I'm not determined.
At my lightest in 2023, I weighed 60kg. Currently I weigh over 95kg. I don't know what else people who hold your view can be told to convince them this problem is not one of willpower. I have the capacity to suffer. I've given up smoking. There is no escape from food.
You described a lot of physical activities, but diet controls your weight. It's natural to have more of an appetite with increased activity. It's also normal to increase your weight a bit due to increased muscle mass.
I’m trying to demonstrate that I’m not this ridiculous (and frankly grossly reductive) caricature of the overweight slob. And yet I still struggle with food. So maybe let’s drop that notion altogether, because it’s not at all helpful.
Yup. I lost 70 lbs in 2017, and I ran my first marathon last month. I'm going out to run a half on Sunday because that's just what I do now, it's nothing to go out and enjoy myself for 2 hours. I'm fit, I know how to lose weight, I know how to be in the suck but I know that this coming winter I'm going to have to fight to keep a decent weight as I fight stress and the holidays. The battle never ever stops and it's exhausting.
Sure, but the "unhealthy but not excessively caloric" diet is not a problem ozempic attempts to address. As far as I understand, it simply limits your appetite. Potentially one can go on ozempic, lose weight, and still end up eating unhealthily, because the resulting diet is made up of nutritionally poor foods.
Ozempic does not simply limit your appetite, it seems to also affect how much reward your brain feels from different foods (and activities!), which would make it easier to override those anticipated rewards with conscious choices.
And the argument you are replying to is that it's just covering up a symptom and not addressing the root problem holistically. Ozempic isn't a fix, it's a bandaid.
That's great. We still give crutches to people who break their legs and bandaids to people with wounds. We don't tell them that being completely healed is better than using those aids.
Bandaids serve a genuinely useful health-promoting purpose. I suspect we'll find the same is true of GLP-1s even if it only addresses part of the entire problem.
Only when applied correctly and with other interventions. Using ozempic without diet and exercise changes is like putting a bandaid on a .5" deep wound without sterilizing it.
because ozempic reduces the food cravings, patients are able to implement and stick with a diet change. it's not like "put down that cheeseburger and have a salad" is something they haven't heard before and haven't internalized already, it's just their brain won't do it. ozempic gives them the space on their brain to actually do it.
My original impression was that it was suppose to be a crutch, helping you get started on a healthy lifestyle. So if you are to heavy to exercise without hurting yourself it could help you lose that initial weight. Or it can help you with your appetit, while you adjust your diet.
You also can't stay on Ozempic, you have to continuously increase you dose to get the same effect, so it's simply not viable to keep taking it for an extend period of time. That's at least the impression I've been getting from talking to people working at pharmacies.
Sure, but so what? Until we can permanently change aspects of our brain, like our proclivity for addiction, then all interventions are bandaids on top of an underlying problem.
Even behavioral changes like avoiding fast food don't fix the underlying problem in your brain. It's topical.
It's amazing how the subject of Ozempic brings out such trivial claims uttered with a serious face.
The combination of bad diet and lack of exercise. Specifically in the context of this conversation, its about how ozempic will not fix a bad diet. Eating less of a bad diet is better than eating more of a bad diet, but is still a bad diet in the end.
No, but if it helps avoid the discussion because the very visible side effect is lessened, then in some ways things are worse. No squeaky wheel.
I’m glad it’s available for those who need it. But I agree with GP that there is another discussion we need to be having too we’ve avoided for far far too long.
I wasn’t talking about nutrients at all. I was referring to the problems of over processed foods with lots of chemicals to increase shelf life and improve color and make them more addictive.
I’m not against Ozempic. But without it maybe the continued expansion of the obesity epidemic would have pushed the discussion.
If this accidentally prevents that discussion, I think that’s a problem. I’m not suggesting any change to the drug’s availability. Only concern over an important discussion.
Maybe it’s naïve. But it’s getting harder and harder to ignore, and worse and worse.
As we export our food to more and more places, it starts to happen to them.
I hear about people who take trips to Europe. They eat a ton, feel better, and lose weight.
They get back home, start eating food here (even healthy food) and feel worse again. Gain it back despite eating less.
We’ve tried ignoring it. We’ve tried blaming genetics, character, fat in foods, sugar, and willpower. But none of those have explained/fixed it. Because I don’t think that’s the problem.
I want the evidence to keep piling up. I don’t want anyone to suffer unnecessarily, but I don’t want a new excuse to stop progress again.
It doesn’t have to be either/or. But if we give up the chance for the debate because a new miracle drug “solved“ it nothing will change.
This is literally just how you're supposed to go round any roundabout. Right lane if you're going straight ahead or right (to any extent), left lane otherwise. Anything else _will_ cause crashes, because vehicles will necessarily have to cut across each other to exit the roundabout.
The "turbo roundabout" might make this explicit, but it's not different.
This is hugely oversimplified and doesn't really correspond to real life. Not all roundabouts are symmetric and not all have four entry-exit pairs. Many roundabouts have two lanes on some entries, but a single lane on others, similarly for exits. In scenarios like this you will inevitably have to switch lanes in some scenarios. It isn't really as big of a problem as you make it sound though, since roundabouts naturally have everyone go slow, crashes are very rare so long as the layout is clear.
> Not all roundabouts are symmetric and not all have four entry-exit pairs.
I didn't say or imply this. The rule works for non-symmetrical roundabouts without issue. To phrase it differently:
If your exit is to the right of a hypothetical line extending across the roundabout in your direction of travel upon entry into the roundabout, go in the right lane. Otherwise, left lane.
> In scenarios like this you will inevitably have to switch lanes in some scenarios.
No roundabout I've ever driven through in the UK has required lane switching, unless I was in the wrong lane to begin with.
A turbo roundabout is directionally biased while "any roundabout" doesn't have to be. A turbo roundabout also does not allow u-turns which becomes quite the limitations for road systems wanting to utilize medians for left turn control.
E.g. a standard 2-lane by 2-lane roundabout intersection may just as well look like this https://i.imgur.com/jqhMxW4.jpeg. Note the entrance markings allowing all lanes to go straight with 1 alternative turn direction per lane choice, the exit markings allowing dual lane exits in all directions, and internal markings allowing u-turns (the roads in this case have medians farther out). It has some of the downsides you mention but also some upsides in exchange for allowing slightly more lane flexibility. Regardless, you're definitely not supposed to follow the turbo's rules in that roundabout.
Now you could "no true Scotsman" it and say all the other roundabout types aren't roundabouts because they are supposed to be like turbo roundabouts to be so... but that still leaves needing the distinction in types, for which everyone calls one a turbo roundabout and other variations different types of roundabout.
It's only the difference between CI enforcing code style vs manual PR reviews that have a checkbox for code style. They accomplish the same, but one is infinitely better.
It seems this would solve the problem with normal roundabouts where you have a lane you should be following but know that a vehicle in an adjacent lane is likely to infringe on yours.
4-way stops are bizarre to me having grown up in the UK where roundabouts/intersections with priority given for one direction are trusted and reliable traffic-calming measures.
I think one of the reasons a 4-way stop might be introduced is to improve safety where there was previously a 2-way stop (that people would blow through). I came across this in Canada recently. All I can say is the UK has drastically lower traffic-related deaths than Canada [0] and I think I've seen 2-3 stop signs in my entire life. I imagine North America's pedestrian hostility is a piece of this puzzle.
Don't get me started on North American highway interchanges. The UK's roundabout junction system is far superior, in my opinion.
Four way stops are common in lightly trafficked situations where the locals can't justify spending the money on anything but a few stop signs. For instance, the main street through a small town (<2k pop) might have traffic lights and maybe a circle for the one other major road it intersects, but where the two or three roads parallel to that intersect with other town roads, a four way stop makes the most sense. Most of the time a car gets to one, it will be alone. Since neither road is long and neither is expected to have fast cars anyway, a four way stop is the most natural and intuitive option way to sign it.
Four way stops are also common when two country roads of relatively equal weight intersect. There are so many roads like that, so many intersections, that the local government can't possibly afford lights or circles on all of them. If one of the roads is known to get substantially more traffic than the other than a two-way stop is usually used, but if it isn't obvious then a four way stop is the safe default. In these situations, pedestrians aren't a factor at all because the intersection is five miles away from a town and it's farmland on both sides of both roads. Virtually nobody is walking there, not even people walking their dogs (unpaved access roads are better for that anyway.)
I'm not sure why the four way stop "makes the most sense".
In Europe one road (perhaps arbitrarily) would be declared the main road, and the other road gets yield signs, or even just yield road markings (triangles).
If one is obviously a main road then it's a two way. If neither is, then it's a four way. If the intersection is lightly trafficked then there's not any reason not to make it a four way because it won't cause meaningful delays anyway. When a county has several hundred country road intersections that get a few dozen cars or less a day through them, it doesn't make sense to even spend time studying each one. Just throw up some stop signs and consider the matter resolved.
Or do what they do in the UK. For all of these, make them 'mini-roundabouts' which is literally a dot painted on the center of the road. You follow the rules of the roundabout without building one. Works just as efficiently as a four way stop with light traffic - actually more, since you don't need to stop if the intersection is empty.
Or, in the absence of any signage, it'd just be "right before left". Relatively common in the outskirts of cities where there isn't one road that has significantly more traffic than the other one.
No, that’s not the same. On a 4-way stop you have to completely stop. Also how I remember my year in the US (I’m from NL) is that the first to reach the stop has right of way, not the “left” one. But I might be wrong on that last one? Didn’t have a drivers license at the time (but was surprised - and turned off from - 4-way stops).
What I've found quite surprising in seeing these WFH vs RTO debates play out over the past couple of years is that even the WFH stans argue in terms defined by the employers.
The most obvious example of this is citing evidence that WFH makes people more productive, but there are various other arguments that try to position WFH as beneficial for both employers and employees.
I have opinions on many of the points made by both sides, but honestly it strikes me as the wrong argument to be having. The reason I want to be able to WFH is because I prefer it. I don't care if it's better for my employer or not, the same as I don't care whether working on Saturday and Sunday is better or not - I simply won't do it.
I know I'm in a privileged position to be able to say "I won't work in an office" and others have obligations that undermine their ability to show RTO employers the finger.
I guess I'm just surprised that people demanding WFH, simply because they want it, seem to be in the minority, judging by HN comments (fraught, I know). Perhaps this is a culture clash? I'm British, and this might be a US-centric thing.
Like you say, the set of people who'd be pushing the argument from that angle is inherently pretty small. Basically either those that don't need money from a job in the first place + those that want some extra money from a job but only when it's extremely convenient and that boundary just happens to be WFH or not.
The others don't inherently care more about their employer than themselves, they care more more about the money impact it means for their compensation. More efficient = more valuable to employer = more compensation. For employees benefit only = less valuable to employer = less compensation.
My labour history knowledge is pretty non-existent, but I assume past progress was often made via unions, e.g. 8-hour work day. Seems like this is a situation begging for workers (at Amazon and elsewhere) to unionise and demand the right to WFH through the power of collective bargaining.
The workers that progressed labour rights in the past surely mostly needed their jobs too, so this situation doesn't seem unique at all.
Legal progress yes, but it had plenty of loopholes and pushback and wasn't normalized until the Ford Motor Company did it (combined with going from a 6-day work week to 5 days), because Henry Ford believed the extra downtime would increase productivity and possibly even demand for the cars he sold. His success compared to competitors is why everyone else followed suit.
(I want to preface this that I consider myself pro-union, so people don't just stop reading halfway through. Also this is all my 2 cents, I'm not an expert in these topics by any means)
Unions can definitely solve it, be it the actual optimal thing to do for each individual or not, should everyone involved unionize. Even then though, workers would also like to work 2 hours a week for the same pay... it doesn't mean a union forming to do it would be successful. The same dynamics eventually come back into play: is it actually more efficient? If not, is that money loss something the union workers are willing to take? It's tempting to say "they can just force the business to cut profits anyways!" and... sure, they could, but they could do that while being more efficient and get even more money too. I.e. ultimately the union and people that make it up are just as interested in making sure they balance doing a certain amount of what they don't like with a certain amount of being efficient to get the most out of it. Whoever you make the group that needs to be convinced it's worthwhile you still need to convince it's the overall more efficient choice.
On the topic of unions though, unions typically form for lower paid workers. Not that they never form for higher paid workers but they tend to have more options already, less to gain, and more to lose when joining a union compared to a lower paid workers. The amount of effort a business will put in to avoiding a union will also vary with pay as the relative asks tend to scale as well e.g. on pay a union for ~70k/year auto workers wanting a 10% pay bump is cheaper to accept than a union for ~140k/year tech workers wanting a 10% pay bump.
I think tech workers will eventually make and join unions regularly. Maybe not in the current pay and political climate, but eventually. Until then our relatively small problems of "having to deal with showing up in person at work for one of the higher paying jobs" are not going to be as huge of drivers to unionize as places that wanted to keep fingers or earn a more average salary.
They don’t make labor law like they used to, unfortunately. The Supreme Court has steadily been gutting it for 40+ years now, and unionism has unfortunately been subsumed into culture war politics so that even a bare acknowledgement of the imbalances in negotiating power between management and labor is impossible without getting entangled in tribal-political ideology. Which means there’s equally no hope that Congress will reverse any of the erosion of labor rights inflicted by the courts.
> the WFH stans argue in terms defined by the employers
that just naturally follows from the employer-employee relationship and the fact is WFO has been the default for decades. So, somewhere the onus is falling onto employees if they want to go against what the default has been
I totally agree the onus is on workers - employers spontaneously giving workers more rights is rare. I just think the onus is not on proving that WFH is good for everyone, and instead on bargaining collectively. Especially since these RTO orders seem to be veiled, free layoffs - arguments about productivity are totally hopeless.
If Amazon engineers unionised, this RTO mandate could be fought without appeals to employers' business motivations. Workers shouldn't have to grovel for rights, we hold as much power as employers, and refusal to wield it is what hamstrings rights efforts.
Can't we ask legislators to clarify their own legislation?