They don't have to be new or good. Or recently washed.

Crohn's here. You would not believe what my body can produce. The other side of it as well is when you really need to go, and somebody has thoroughly destroyed the only available cubicle(s). I once just walked out the state of the loos was so bad. It's ok to touch the toilet brush to sort out your own stuff people 😭

They did a doctor who episode about this. It turned out to be a Bad Thing. I'm not sure what the deal with this trend of turning warnings into reality is, I can only assume it has something to do with who's holding the purse strings of scientific research.

By the sounds of it the first point is handled by having essentially a year long probationary period, and then another two year period before someone becomes fully entrenched in the org as a full partner. This is almost certainly a long enough time to determine if someone is going to be a piss taker or not and so other instances of underperformance can be handled via supportive mechanisms.

It's worth highlighting that performance "curves" in some companies seem to lay off reasonably productive people and preserve people who are great at gaming the system/metrics.

For conflict resolution I don't know how they do it, but if I were in charge of this I'd probably have a dedicated body like an HR set up for this which would be democratically accountable but ultimately still deal with that kind of thing as a last resort (assuming it can't be sorted out between team members).

Many worker co-ops have been resilient to recessions as members often choose to temporarily lower their own pay/share of profits rather than having layoffs or other similar arrangements. https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/new-economy/2009/06/06/mondragon-worker-cooperatives-decide-how-to-ride-out-a-downturn

I think there's another issue in that the agencies who receive the executive order are essentially obliged to act as if they are legally binding until they're shot down in court. This means there's a sort of time gap where an executive order can enact an essentially permanent change (e.g. delete a bunch of info, bomb something, etc.) and the court has no way to get it reversed by the time they rule on it.

The main thing about the prevailing circumstances is that it showed idiocracy was way too optimistic. Their eugenics-ish narrative happened over way too long a period of time. We just needed a bunch of billionaires to poison the information supply.

"Lights out" factories have been an industry goal for a while. It does seem like it's finally within reach. Honestly what I don't understand is why western nations with relatively high labour costs and an increasing desire for autonomy and skilled job creation haven't been pursuing this.

Maybe like a limited Gaia hypothesis. The whole planet is a conscious thing, we are its braincells and its hands.

It's still March... 2020

I think Hanlon's razor is a false dichotomy here. Neither stupidity nor malice are required to explain self-interest, which is the far more likely explanation given the people involved and their actions up to this point.

the guy who thinks detonating masses of nuclear warheads on a planet is likely to make it more habitable rather than less

I think there's a balance, in that if everybody suppressed that speech and refused to take that risk of criticising then those corrupt and powerful state actors would be unchallenged.

They can then become even more powerful and may continue to encroach into private life and speech. While it may be necessary to defend yourself on the one hand, hiding entirely may also present additional dangers.