Requiring remote federal workers — emphasis on federal, as in people who work for the United States government writ large — to report in to their home office twice a pay cycle is laughably small-minded. It would seem the undertone of this is two fold:

1. It keeps workers planted to specific office complexes, which has tangible benefits to the local economy that complex is located within. This means that the politicians responsible for that area can claim credit for jobs where those complexes are located, even if the job responsibilities have little to do with that specific area.

2. It keeps liberally minded workers from moving out of cities and into exurban or rural communities that typically vote for conservatives. This kind of movement, writ large, has the potential to really shake up national politics, arguably for the better. And we can’t have that now can we?

In both cases, this is a naked attempt to artificially control the federal workforce to benefit the status quo and keep harmful, self-serving politicians in power.

It doesn’t. Public transportation only really works in dense environments. The rub is that the default mode of development across the US has been suburban sprawl, which basically makes the “last mile” - from the bus/train route to your house / business / shops - impractical.

Best we can do given this state of affairs is build good transit and densify around the stops with infill development. Continuing the pattern of sprawl just makes every problem related to transportation harder - longer commutes, more traffic, higher amount of energy consumed to get from point A to point B.

Anyway, hope this battery tech works out because a lot of us are stuck with expensive personal vehicles as our only viable option given the way our cities are laid out.

It’s an Albany excretion.

Rightly so. While the state has a right to prohibit individual actions that cause harm, such as hate speech or incitements to violence, it would be a massive human rights violation to ban access to platforms generally, as it would silence a space where constructive dissent is organized.

“Whataboutism” is a logical fallacy that presents a counter-accusation in lieu of the question being discussed. What you present here is a textbook definition. The topic is the US’s involvement in supplying Ukraine with a specific type of munition, and not the broader question of how the US allocates its money generally.

What a pleasant retrospective on the indie Mac dev era. While it was fun and had its time in the sun, I have to say that I prefer the more decentralized era we are now in. Scanning stuff into Delicious Library with the laptop webcam was fun and all, but it doesn’t compare to the convenience of using the phone in your pocket to scan into a database that syncs across all platforms, where data can be manipulated in bulk later using a mouse and keyboard.