That doesn't seem like a full explanation. Sure, prices are tied to supply and demand. But demand is tied to how much money people have, so that just brings you right back to the original question.
Housing supply and demand isn't static. With UBI the need to live close to employment opportunities decreases, opening up more supply in areas that are currently less attractive and decreasing demand in other areas.
Furthermore we still don't know how people will react to UBI once they feel it is universal and permanent. If you're busting your ass to take home $1500 a month today, and then you get $1500 a month UBI, will you keep working just as much and take home $3000 a month, will you cut down on work and aim for $2200 a month, or will you keep living on $1500 a month and just chill all day. Depending on what choices people make, most people might not end up with that much more money.
Your own description of your work seems self-contradictory?
You have a paragraph that says you could work much faster than others and still "finish them with accuracy, attention to detail" and then in the very next paragraph you note that going so fast meant you were making mistakes and overlooking things.
This is only to say that I'm not sure how to interpret your own description.
It also sounds like the KPIs that had been set did not match the stated goals of your supervisors. KPIs focused on speed of output while your supervisors are telling you that quality and attention to your work is more important. I see this as a classic example of an organisation falling into the trap of just measuring what's easy to measure because they can't measure what they actually care about.
The KPIs weren't focused on speed at all; don't know how you came to that conclusion. Their KPIs were in-line with their spoken criteria and they were always calibrating for best outcomes.
The only time speed or volume was at issue was when we had a backlog. Sometimes we would begin to miss deadlines/time frames and sometimes there was priority work to be picked up. And AFAIK, KPIs weren't looking at those as a negative. It was just one of those productivity issues we encountered in staffing vs. amount of work vs. deadlines.
Basically my work was excellent by all objective criteria and I was receiving fantastic performance reviews. But I still had room for improvement, don't you see? Simply because of the high rate of speed, I could personally tell that it could've been better, more, nicer, with some TLC and some better pacing. That doesn't mean that anyone else noticed or cared. It was mostly my personal assessments of how I was doing.
But they did drop hints -- once or twice, an issue was raised and my mentor said "It's easy to miss if you're going quickly lol". It was just a hint and hardly even criticism, just a reminder that slowing down wouldn't hurt.
And it's true that the rewards weren't there. If I finished everything then everything was finished and sometimes I was forced to clock out without work to do. That was the drawback of hourly wages for, essentially, piecework.
Slowing down was fraught with complications. I type 100wpm, my thoughts operate at a certain pace, and I would get into a groove like playing a video game. Would you slow down in a video game to do a better job? If I slowed down, would I do better or would the artificial pace cause trouble? I often tried playing ambient, tempo-less or downtempo music to slow my pace, but I would typically just find a rhythm and go with it, rather than artificially slow down. Honestly, due to physical issues and the whole WFH distraction, it was often difficult for me to stay at my desk for a stretch.
Likewise. And, yet, I've thought about this for a while now and looked up a bunch of articles and I still think that "thing" is completely - if not more - appropriate.
I fully understand and use "think" as a noun - eg have a think - but when I say "you have another thing coming", there's no expectation or implication that they're going to rethink anything in the future. People often don't do that. Instead, I'm simply implying that reality is going to turn out to be very different (and probably negative/unfavourable for them) than they think/expect.
It's the equivalent of saying "watch out - youve got something else/other than you expect coming to you".
In fact, it even shifts the rethink from sometime in the future to now - "rethink this now, as it's not going to turn out how you expect" And, moreover, it's often said as a final warning "I'm doing you a favour right now by warning you - it's the only generosity you're going to get from me in this matter".
That sounds like a good way to get fired for cause. I doubt any worker rights protections that apply to acts of "organizing" in the workplace extend as far as protecting clearly malicious acts.
you appear to have changed the word "subtly" to "clearly". i guess intentionally?
the bigger and more complex the software project, the more scope there is for completely deniable fuckups to creep in.
sometimes it's as simple as not pushing back on an obviously bad idea pushed from up above. or it could be spotting a problem and just not doing anything about it.
these small changes compound over time.
the idea of doing this would of course be massively offensive to anybody who was against unionization on principle, a number of whom comment on hacker news. that doesn't, of course, mean it wouldn't work.
If your vector for leverage is that subtle it’s going to be completely useless as a negotiation tool. Unionizing is about outcomes for workers, not retribution.
> you appear to have changed the word "subtly" to "clearly". i guess intentionally?
Perhaps I misunderstood your suggestion? I'm not sure how an action that is subtle enough that the perpetrator isn't recognised as having done anything would be useful in negotiations.
There is such a concept as "work-to-rule", that is, follow the letter of your contract and instructions from management and go no further than that. Is that the kind of action you're referring to?
USB-C can handle 24W on a normal thin cable because the voltage can be ramped up to provide more power at a safe current level. It's high current that makes connectors and cables heat up and creates risks, not high power overall.
Supporting that higher voltage requires hardware support on both ends and also active negotiation on both ends so the devices can agree what voltage to use. (Without that it falls back to the old USB default 5V and a much lower max power)
It's funny because from that diagram I really don't see any particular relationship between the shape and its content. You could draw a regular pyramid with three segments and write the same labels on it and it would make just as much sense to me.
If anything a regular pyramid makes more sense to me: you want the smallest/narrowest useful description at the top and then you gradually expand on it as you go down, providing more (wider) context and detail for the key information.
Edit: Of course, it's a widely used term and good to understand in that context; the Wikipedia link is useful.
I think it's about laying foundations at the beginning, not the length of the text at the beginning. The first sentence/paragraph is the foundation of everything beneath it, whereas the base of a normal pyramid is the foundation of everything above it.
> I thought it was demeaning that even what I create in my own private time would be owned and attributed to someone else.
I still feel this way. Well, I don't think I'd use the word demeaning, but I think it's a despicable abuse of the employee/employer power dynamic for my employer to claim ownership on my whole creative output outside of the work I'm actually paid to do.
> Either that or make following robots.txt a legal requirement [...]
A legal requirement in what jurisdiction, and to be enforced how and by whom?
I guess the only feasible legislation here is something where the victim pursues a case with a regulating agency or just through the courts directly. But how does the victim even find the culprit when the origin of the crawling is being deliberately obscured, with traffic coming from a botnet running on exploited consumer devices?
It wouldn't have to go that deep. If we made not following robots.txt illegal in certain jurisdictions, and blocked all IP addresses not from those jurisdictions, then there would presumably have to be an entity in those jurisdictions, such as a VPN provider, an illegal botnet, or a legal botnet, and you pursue legal action with those.
The VPNs and legal botnets would be heavily incentivized to not allow this to happen (and presumably already are doing traffic analysis), and illegal botnets should be shutdown anyway (some grace in the law about being unaware of it happening should of course be afforded, but once you are aware it is your responsibility to prevent your machine from committing crimes).
Illegal botnets aren't new. Are they currently shutdown regularly? (I'm actually asking, I don't know)
> If we made not following robots.txt illegal in certain jurisdictions, and blocked all IP addresses not from those jurisdictions
That sounds kinda like the balkanization of the internet. It's not without some cost. I don't mean financially, but in terms of eroding the connectedness that is supposed to be one of the internet's great benefits.
Maybe people need to add deliberate traps on their websites. You could imagine a provider like Cloudflare injecting a randomly generated code phrase into thousands of sites and making sure to attribute it under a strict license, that is invisible so that no human sees it, and changes every few days. Presumably LLMs would learn this phrase and later be able to repeat it - getting a sufficiently high hit rate should be proof that they used illegitimately obtained data. Kinda like back in the old days when map makers included fake towns, rivers and so on in their maps so that if others copied it they could tell
reply