You are correct in that numbers leading into Covid rose dramatically and started to fall off over the last, I wanna say, year and a half or so. Still larger than before. I do not have anything against hiring and firing on a by need basis. However, I do think that's gone too far in this instance. When you have 15-20k people being let go at multiple organizations, there's something wrong with the decision process in the first place imo.

In a state where corporatism dominates everything and the reins are minimal. We allow corporate A to get away with more than we deem appropriate for the sake of preserving the bottom line. This gives them leverage to do it again and again or to intensify. It also showcases to corporation B that this abuse is at an apparent acceptable threshold, with room to probably get away with a bit more. It's an abusive cycle that will continue to demolish the well being of more and more people until proper reins are put in place.

Ah right. Gotta continue letting them get away with whatever they want or we might hurt the bottom line. This thinking is part of why we're here.

Sure you can. We could limit the work week to 32 hours, pay higher salaries such that homes and goods are affordable again.

I highly doubt that. They are open-sourcing a small suite because it is economical to do so. Closed source means constantly having to re-train newcomers. Normalizing VsCode and friends will go a long ways. Same thing Google did with their IT certs.

Fair, but let's be honest, most of the time a partner may not want to hear about a solution because they first want compassion and understanding. Be willing to listen, and your partner will talk about a solution when they are ready.

No dude. Sound and air pressure are cues as well.

YouTube surprised at sudden lack of consumers

I'm aware of this. This is the first time I'm aware they managed to get a pilot system and I think that shows great promise. Also, people are noticing more and more, and pushing back.

It will. Takes time to test and roll things out

A minimum 4 year commitment was supposed to make you more valuable in the job market. That was the entire point or at least the message broadcasted. If a degree isn't conducive to large potential for at least a 30% increase in wages, what's the point of that time invested? Either institutes are adequately designed to promote this or they're effectively useless in a practical sense.

Isn't this standard procedure for blogs/journalism? I thought the quotes are used to imply a term is not being used because the author thinks it's true, but rather to indicate that that's what the topic is centered on.