It’s a complicated issue and explaining it to people who have been spending the last year consuming Iranian propaganda isn’t going to get her anywhere. People want her to say “Israel is evil” and anything other than that will have them screaming “genocide Kamala” in the same way they scream “genocide Joe.”

Yeah it’s really a no-win scenario. Probably why she’s just avoiding the subject altogether.

A lot of people have grandparents that fought against an antisemitic regime tho.

It seems odd that endorsing Carter was “understandable reasons at the time.” What were the reasons? Following the whole debacle with Nixon it made sense to endorse the guy running against the GOP? Isn’t there even more understandable reasons a this time right now?

It would make sense in any other election other than this one and the last one. Really weird choice to stop endorsing with this particular election.

They have a list of people that are registered to vote. They mark off the people on the list who have voted so they can’t vote twice. But when the person actually votes it’s done outside the sight of anyone else (sometimes behind a curtain) so no one knows who they voted for.

There was a time when there were gangs outside of polling stations that would beat the shit out of people that didn’t vote how they wanted. And considering how insane the MAGAs are, it’s not too improbable this kind of thing could happen again if it weren’t for having a secret ballot system.

Now you’re talking about CEOs as a nebulous they.

I’m talking about a CEO that said things similar to what an amazon exec said under an article about what that amazon exec said.

Also I work in software development. There has been a clear uptick in negativity towards developers where I work, which happens to be in a similar field to the one in the article.

I’ve also worked with AWS, and I can tell you for sure, they can’t afford to lose their best talent. Their system is pretty janky in many places and their boss should be putting more effort in making better software instead of playing games about forcing people to sit in a specific chair 5 days per week.

The CEO of Zoom explictily stated that he felt in zoom meetings people were being too “friendly” and not willing to have “debate”.

Why would it be bad for employees to be friendly? What employees want to have unfriendly debates in meetings? I think it’s just managers that want that. What kind of “debate” do managers want? Why do they not want meetings to be “friendly”? Methinks they just want to yell at employees and don’t feel comfortable doing it in zoom meetings for some reason…

holds up spork

Mine love it out there.

The trick is to bring them inside before it gets cold.

Most people aren’t all that well informed and don’t do a lot of crtical thinking about their political positions on things. Many people are only guided by their emotions.

If your Church says that life begins at conception, then abortion is killing babies. So you’d be angry about abortions happening.

If you hear a horrible crime, you’re angry about that and might want the person that did that crime to be executed. If you never hear about or think about innocent people being execute, never consider the ethical problems with a government killing people, never consider the costs of it, and all the other arguments against the death penalty, then you can go through life thinking there’s no problem with it.

And even if you hear the rational arguments, they get overpowered by emotion the next time someone says “abortion is murder” or you hear about a horrible crime happening that might qualify for the death penalty.

Do you mean Trump’s signature?

Depending on the agreements they made, they might lose those tax breaks… and they do care about that.

Have you ever bitten into a road apple?

People come up with funny names for things sometimes.

Yeah I’m way more available when working from home, since I can get my nicotine fix at my desk and I can’t do that in the office. I need to get up and walk around to get the blood flowing, in the office I think it would be weird to walk a few laps around the cubicle to do this, so I end up being further from my desk more. At home I’m basically always close enough to hear my computer make a ding when I get a message. And if there’s an urgent issues that requires attention off hours… sorry not much I can do to help you when I’m on a bus transiting to and from work.

Yeah and for that minority, they could still go into the office 5 days a week.

My previous boss that found family members too distracting at home so he came in 5 days. But he was cool and told us "yeah don’t worry about coming in the days HR is telling you to, I come in every day and hardly anybody is here any way. " Oddly enough, most of the time we actually did come in on the days HR said because we didn’t want to get him into trouble for it.

It’s almost like if the bosses aren’t complete assholes, people will actually want to come into the office more.

“Have you tried disagreeing on a call! It’s hard!”

When it’s an online meeting, they’re worried about it potentially being recorded. So what they’re really saying is that they can’t verbally abuse employees without there potentially being evidence of it.

The deals they had with various governments to get tax breaks if they built the office in their city are still a consideration. Amazon put governments of municipalities into a bidding war so they could have highly paid software engineers working in their city. They probably aren’t going to get those tax breaks any more if most of those offices are empty.

HR only cares because they’re told to make a policy and it’s their job to enforce it.

I don’t even get how any company with several sites has anything to stand on. Makes no fucking sense.

Companies like Amazon got major tax breaks and free land from governments to build these office sites. Governments gave these incentives with the expectation that it would generate economic activity around those sites. But if everyone is working from home those offices aren’t delivering on the promised economic activity.

And also they spent a lot of money on those offices and so want them to be used. It’s hard for whoever decided to build that office and the government officials that gave all the tax incentives towards it to admit that conditions have changes and all of that was for no significant benefit. It sucks to realize something you put in a lot of work into had no real benefit. Most people just have to accept that. But if you’re in a position of power you can make people do things that will make your project look like it had a successful outcome.

They’d mix in laughter from earlier takes into later takes. Obviously people are going to laugh more the first time they hear a joke than on the second or third time hearing it. So that seems reasonable to me.

Saying “actual audience laughter” wouldn’t mean it isn’t a laugh track, ie. actual audience laughter recorded from something else. In the end it’s all recorded laughter no matter what they did. So “filmed before a live studio audience” would be the best way to describe it.

Yeah the “they’re ruining the integrity of video game journalism” argument was insane to me. What integrity? Companies routinely paid for good reviews and everyone knew it. It’s a really corrupt industry, but people only got upset because of some shenanigans by women? I think? I never actually looked into what it was about because the whole thing seemed nonsense to me.