Yes. Even if it weren't, it doesn't even seem to matter anymore. Making better products doesn't seem to lead to more money than churning out shit and financializing it, so why would anyone bother?
I know that this is Hacker News and so all rich and important people must be geniuses making only rational moves, but consider the slim possibility that most aren't very good leaders and make poor decisions.
Maybe there's some 19D "soft layoff" motivation, but I suspect a large part is just about control and appearance. You spent all that money on offices so workers better be there. And what's the point of having your own nice big office if you can't look out on the peons toiling for you? And more fundamentally, some people just have this deep belief that work = something you do in an office and can't compute working at home as "real" work, no matter what the results show.
There’s some of that for sure, but also knowledge sharing is easier in person. The question is whether or not it’s that much easier to justify the trade off of in person work. I don’t think so, but even most remote workers I know would agree that in person has a certain collaborative nature that remote lacks.
Sure, WFH has some downsides as does anything, but it's always funny to me that we have 150+ years of basically everyone who's ever worked in an office despising it as a place where productivity goes to die mired in pointless meetings, office politics, etc., but when WFH becomes a realistic option all of a sudden the office is now Plato's Academy reborn.
This was a trend among boards and executives, people like GE's CEO would not shut up about it, and that started the trend of boards requiring even recalcitrant CEOs to do it too.
Then the executives come up with justifications, one of which is surely the ability to trim some hires in a tight financial environment.
I know that this is Hacker News and so all rich and important people must be geniuses making only rational moves, but consider the slim possibility that most aren't very good leaders and make poor decisions.
Every single frontpage thread on WFH / RTO for years now on HN has dozens to hundreds of comments bitching about the obvious stupidity and narcissism of upper management to force RTO, which is obviously inferior in every way, at least according to HN.
You can't be as deeply involved in your kids' lives if you've got 8 of them. There is a reason why every large family has sibling-parents.
Visible elements of pronatalism are largely focused on assigning a particular family role to women and trying to increase the supply of a particular kind of desirable baby (often white, but sometimes focused on IQ selection and other eugenic elements).
I only know one family with >=8 kids (they have 10) and not that well so I can't really comment on them. I know many with 4-6 kids though. It's true that in most cases the women have a traditional family role (not always though, I know one couple where the wife is a very successful cardiologist and the husband is an athletic trainer). Parental involvement is usually higher in these families than among the 2-3 children, 2 professional parent families I know, mostly because one parent is either not working or working in a reduced capacity.
The eugenics part doesn't match my experience at all. I've never seen any evidence that people who are having large families are motivated by that.
>I associate the concept of pronatalism with also wanting to be involved in your kids' lives
Then don't because it's just wrong. Very few, if any, of the "more babies, bigger families" types have any interest in or concern for the children after they're born. In fact they're usually the ones fighting tooth and nail to prevent any kinds of programs or services that might help the resulting children and families.
For them it's just a pure numbers game/bizarre sexual fetish disguised as a philosophy.
Well, there was the previous whistleblower complaint that members of DOGE accessed and shared sensitive Social Security data without the awareness of agency officials, which the government denied...until this January when they were forced to admit in a court filing that it was true. [https://archive.is/efY6S]
That is to say, there is no reason to extend this administration or anything DOGE-related the benefit of the doubt.
I like the phrasing of this because it tells us nothing of whether your family liked the change (or felt better off with it) or not. You can adapt to a lot.
Does it even actually matter what you do? How many lawsuits/investigations have there been in the last decade revealing that some company or another that swore up and down was following privacy laws, protecting your data, and not selling it actually were. I'm at the point where I figure anyone who wants to track me is, and any privacy pop-ups or the like are just for show.
Yeah it's really not worth my mental energy. Sometimes I take the time to reject tracking cookies. But I figure everyone's tracking me and everyone has my SSN at this point, and as long as my credit files are locked I don't really care. Like why do I even care if people are linking all my browsing data together and then using it to market stuff to me.
FWIW I'm 43 and grew up on the dark parts of the internet.
No, it's very much yours and the way you phrased it. Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but you sound like some kind of "pickup artist" type giving advice on "negging" women.
Since I didn't mention how to do anything, seems like he was projecting his biases on my words. Pretty sad that "be someone worth talking to" and "don't project neediness" are somehow owned by the manosphere now. No wonder people are marrying chatbots.
reply