circuitfarmer @ circuitfarmer @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

147

Joined

2 yr. ago

$50 is decent. It's a living wage. It is not exorbitant and there's plenty of incentive for workers aiming higher.

One of my most hated "arguments" is the notion that "well, I'm an experienced worker and I've only made $15/hr forever. Therefore I will actively fight against raising wages because my wages were always low". What self-defeating bullshit. If the minimum wage had been indexed to anything having to do with cost of living for the last half century, $50 would be about right.

A recruiter reached out to me about two weeks ago. The role was interesting but said "hybrid to start, then on-site after 3 months" -- in spite of being listed as "Remote" in the title. I told the recruiter it was a hard pass. They proceeded to tell me that I really should be "more flexible" because they're seeing fewer and fewer remote roles.

I told them to simply remove me from any lists in the future and that I would not respond to any other recruitment requests from their company.

I have worked remotely since far before covid. It's been nearly 10 years. I am seeing some companies scramble for RTO, and in almost all cases, it's companies with demonstrable investment in real estate or contractual obligations to office space. Obviously it has also been used in some cases to force resignations so the company doesn't need as many lay-offs (specifically for those which overhired during covid). That's it. As far as I'm concerned, there is absolutely no benefit to RTO in terms of worker performance, efficiency, or happiness.

Companies are very likely to lose top talent with RTO. They're also extremely unlikely to be able to attract that talent in the first place. It's effectively a brain drain. Remote-first companies stand to continue to gain, which isn't a bad thing at all.

C-suite should have chatted with their own people in manufacturing, I reckon

The whole damn system exists to place the burden of a living wage on the customer while the company paying peanuts can claim no wrongdoing. And the really sad part is: it has worked.

Edit: and there are many, many businesses that wouldn't be in business if they actually had to pay competitive wages on their own. The invisible hand can fix nothing if tipping culture says to throw more and more arbitrary amounts of money at people to subsidize their wages yourself. At some point (I'd argue we're past it already), the band-aid needs to get ripped off. Only then will we see self-correction. The almost immediate loss of many businesses will likely trigger other actions. It's already a no-win scenario.

Most every other social contract has been violated already. If they don't ignore robots.txt, what is left to violate?? Hmm??

Apparently LUnix was originally designed for the Commodore 64 and Commodore 128. I didn't know such a thing existed for 6502-based systems.

Sounds like it's time for me to raid the closet. The Commodore 128 is a strange beast (considering the Z80 coprocessor that effectively does nothing, unless you boot CP/M) but playing with a tiny Unix-like OS on it seems like a fun project.

I'm sure they do. AI regulation probably would have helped with that. I feel like congress was busy with shit that doesn't affect anything.

Yeah let's not bring animals into this. All my best friends are animals.

Luckily for him, he's had good luck with treason so far.

If only there were some regulatory body the government had that could set things right!....right?

At a time when AAA often sucks so much, it sounds really out of touch to say your overpriced game is "quadruple-A".

Xfinity "10G" energy

Weird, I see "You will need to use a different service/company"

Some were hot before they were cool. That should mean something.

I mean, you're debating the meaning of "accurate representation". We may as well debate the meaning of perception, too, but I don't think it changes the point of my original argument.

...but the lights weren't on.

Yeah, this is a great example of a true statement that just serves to muddy the water of the actual argument.

A better way to think about it is: an AI-dependent photo is less representative of whatever is in the photo versus a regular photo.

On a scale of 1 to Surprised, this is a 0.

Yeah, that's the only option I think. Which is to say: we don't really have a democracy anymore.