Being an engineer I am surprised, but for normal staff its very common to not have a personal laptop. The most common request from layoffs or firings in my company has been a request to keep their company laptop
I've worked at a few companies where they'd offer to sell, for a nominal amount, the work-laptops to ex-staff.
I know the last time I left my job I was given the opportunity to buy an M1 mac with 16Gb of RAM for €100, so of course I did.
(Though I also paid €500 to keep the phone they'd bought for me, which was perhaps not such a good deal, it was convienent and I do like the phone, but I'd have been happy to have a random cheap android phone, I have no specific requirements beyond "small enough to fit inside a sporran"!)
If you spend a lot of time in work working on laptop, you might just plain not need one at home. It is not necessary for entertainment, sport, cooking, whatever. You do not need it to learn new things. Plus, some people have desktops or console for gaming.
And if you are coding full time, it is better to not do coding in your free time if you want to maximize learning anyway.
An HR recruiter at an old job told me that they would post a job they preferred or only had budget for a h1b that they would post to obscure job boards and post the job on college campuses that they knew would not get many views. However they posted it met the legal definition to get what they wanted.
Except the CEO should not have anything to with operations. They are there for their connections in every company I have worked at. They are friends with other executives, or politicians and can sway things in the companies favor if needed. They hire their friends to work alongside them. The C-Suite team are just buddies and that is it. They are rarely held accountable and they get raises (along with their exec buddies) because they are friends with their board members who were previous or current executives somewhere else. They will vote on 100% bonuses for themselves faster than your boss can get you a 5 cent raise
Most government agencies cant even pick a different vendor for toilet paper. I cannot imagine the politics involved for trying to supply weapons. All those stories on Flock cameras and being insecure etc is politics at play. Companies know the government will take a decade or more to change vendors, if ever.
This should be up to parents to parent. If their child has social media, or viewing sites that are for adults then the parents should be fined. In the US every weekend teens are shooting each other, i think we have bigger concerns than them being online
The US would only be screwed in that type of scenario if they allowed themselves to be. If things really got to that point they would just take over the deposits.
I always hear about Taiwan and TSMC for Nvidia, but what I never heard until recently is that all these forbidden and banned chips are still assembled into GPUs in China. I am not sure how the US beleives any of this will do much good when the the chips are still sent to China to be completed into GPUs and other AI devices.
I've been using Getflix for years to have my location spoofed to another country. It is a pay product though. I've used it on Amazon and mainly use it for BBC Iplayer. I couldnt ever get netflix to play nice using it or a vpn, so for it I just tunnel to my traffic to a residential address i have in mexico
I look at it more as an investment in our citizens . If you don't keep your grades up or fail out you should have to pay it back, but if you graduate and start your life, pay taxes etc the loans should be forgiven. The country would eventually get their investment back via taxes. They could implement this and some type of oversight to reign in the university costs. Easier to control indebted people though so it wont happen.
That would make sense as a program, though it might incentivize some strange Cobra-Effect type behaviour among both institutions and students. The problem is that the backwards-looking forgiveness/giveaway programs do not incentivize people to work hard or select degrees they can complete.
Practically, this makes no sense though. Those that do not complete school are the ones that will have the hardest time paying back their loans. You are just burying people further in their own failures.
Young people make mistakes. It does not benefit society to make those mistakes ruin their lives.
I think one difference is that for most investments, you get some say in what you invest in.
For public schools, you have school districts. For infrastructure you have utility districts. For libraries and parks and amenities, you have municipal government.
For student loans, though, the individual students are the ones making the decisions. The taxpayer is subsidizing students pursuing highly employable careers like engineering or medical science, but is equally subsidizing students pursuing unemployable degrees like cultural studies or literature.
And to be clear, these areas do have value, but it also seems reasonable for taxpayers to call out the fact that these are terrible ROI investments, money-wise.
reply