Archive.is used to block people with Finnish IPs too, allegedly because of personal immigration issues.
I don’t get the impression it’s something anyone should ever rely on.
A Brit in Helsinki who likes games, tech and burgers.
Archive.is used to block people with Finnish IPs too, allegedly because of personal immigration issues.
I don’t get the impression it’s something anyone should ever rely on.
Sure, but there’s not much they can do about it if things are properly encrypted, for example using DKE on M365.
Sounds like your issue is a shitty workplace and shitty managers more than it is not not working from home.
This is what I was thinking. I’m very lucky to live somewhere where I can live without a car - even here in Helsinki, that’s not always possible.
It’d be the equivalent to spending an extra 2-3 hours a day working (because that’s what the total commute would be), plus money on vehicle upkeep
Maybe this is one of the reasons I actually prefer going to the office. For me, it’s only 15 minutes by metro.
No additional cost, very little wasted/lost time, and I actually enjoy being able to draw a line between work and life by putting them in different physical spaces.
Perhaps it also helps that my managers encourage people to work from wherever they feel they’re the most productive. It’s nice to know that I have the option to work from home without having to explain myself.
Amazon is shitting money. They’re not exactly a typical company.
Maybe for a small number of companies in a small number of industries, but most companies rent their office premises, even large companies.
I’ve worked at several multinational companies that sold their HQ buildings when they recognised that building management was not a core competence for them and tying up capital in real estate has a significant opportunity cost for them.
It’s no skin off their noses if commercial real estate plummets in value - if anything, it would be in their favour as their rent would decrease.
But do they really? If so, why’s there the saying “if you want to murder someone, do it in a car”?
I do think self-driving cars should be held to a higher standard than humans, but I believe the fundamental disagreement is in precisely how much higher.
While zero incidents is naturally what they should be aiming for, it’s more of a goal for continuous improvement, like it is for air travel.
What liability can/should we place on companies that provide autonomous drivers that will ultimately lead to safer travel for everyone?