Embraer obviously isn't quite a Boeing or Airbus but their E-Jets seem like viable narrow-body jets. Now if the argument is that the USA isn't ok with all of the big jet manufacturers being foreign, then yeah, they have to bail Boeing out.
I'm not familiar with anti-gouging laws, but I'd be curious to see if Amazon's typical "we're the marketplace, not the seller" argument applies during declared emergencies or if they should be held responsible to reduce/eliminate price gouging on their platform.
I'm not sure that this is why students are rioting, but the University of Dayton men's basketball team is currently experiencing unprecedented success (ranked third nationally), and the "March Madness" NCAA men's basketball tournament starts in a couple of weeks.
I wonder how much of this is truly about students having nowhere to go vs students being upset that they're going to miss out on a chance for wild partying.
I also wonder if the administration erred on the side of caution here as a means to avoid dealing with over-exuberant partying.
Students are being kicked out of their dorms and are upset/rioting due to this sudden eviction. Why on earth would your immediate suspicion be to accuse students of rioting because of missed potential parties?
And the kids on the street generally look like entitled middle-class white kids causing a disturbance, which reminded me of my own days at the University of Dayton.
EDIT: Perhaps they're being pressured by the administration but the Twitter account for the student newspaper says it was not a protest, and that "students were treating it as a potential last party of the semester".
They all got kicked out of where they live, and paid to live. It's not entitlement to be upset about that. I think the main problem is that you are not making any attempt whatsoever to empathize, instead just bringing out knee-jerk canards about no-good lazy young people.
They were going to get kicked out for spring break anyhow. Then again at the end of the semester. It's temporary housing.
I do empathize with the minority of folks for whom this represents a real challenge.
But having been enrolled at this particular university not all that long ago, my experience is that the vast majority of these young people are members of families that are fairly well-off - they were able to send their kids to a private university (with a reputation as a party school).
Thanks for providing context. From the links provided by the other poster with knowledge of this university it sounds like similar interactions with riot police have happened a number of times.
Not trying to be snarky, but because I think it'll be meaningful to executives: What's the largest profitable remote-only company?
Sure, your Gitlabs, Elastics, Sonatypes, etc, are remote-only, but they're still in VC-funded, money-losing, growth mode, AFAIK.
Are there profitable remote-only companies that a more conservative, maybe even non-tech company could look at to get a warm fuzzy rather than being able to dismiss remote-only as a dalliance for tech bros lighting money on fire?
If you're not trying to be snarky avoid stuff like "dalliance for tech bros lighting money on fire".
I think you can look at subsets of companies for precedent.
- Regional sales staff are very frequently distributed by territory (obviously not remote in customer contact, usually) and work out of their homes. This is common across many companies in and out of tech.
- Distributed teams where you have smaller satellite offices where cross-team functions are remote and coordinated across time zones, which have to be remotely coordinated. This is almost universal in tech in my experience, and widespread outside of tech.
- Hybrid companies where some staff are fully remote or people have a certain number of days per week that can be remote. This is so common as to be universal in tech, in my experience (particularly for support rotation/SRE work).
Fully remote work, to me, seems just minor extension of all of those existing practices.
> If you're not trying to be snarky avoid stuff like "dalliance for tech bros lighting money on fire"
Haha, that's fair. To be clear, I believe remote work is generally more productive and represents the future of most knowledge work. I was trying to put words into the mouth of an imaginary conservative executive who is afraid to go the remote path there.
I did take your comment in the intended spirit! My response were answers in that same spirit (points you might give that executive to say "we're a remote organization already").
Red Hat working is more remote than you'd think from the pure numbers, since even if you're working in an office your team won't all be in the same office. The team I'm in has people working in offices in CZ, around the US, the UK, Australia, and in China. So we work using remote tools anyway.
Buffer and Basecamp come to mind, plus they are more efficient: they pay significantly more while managing to turn impressive revenue/profit vs the headcount.
Isn’t that the wrong metric to look at? You are looking for massive successes from the very small number of remote companies to compare with the massive successes out of all companies. A better (but still somewhat flawed approach) would be to take a random sample of non-remote companies equivalent in size to the number of remote-only companies and compare the distributions of their success.
I work for one Or at least one where remote-only is quite common. Side effect : I have no idea how many coworkers I have, just know the team I work with normally and a few outside.
It's a tech company, but it's an manufacturing one.
I think one of the important questions though is how does the hiring/firing and maintenance of relationships between employees (including management) be handled when face-to-face is over video conferencing only, usually? How do you measure who's doing well - and encourage them to continue? And nudge ones not doing well - and let them go if they're really not fitting?
And of course maintaining work/life balances is hard....
This doesn't sound right. In a remote environment it's crucial to be able to find people. You need a good directory/orgchart. In an office you can walk over to section and ask. In a global chat room or such this is harder.
There are directories. I just haven't needed them - but then I'm mostly a dev on some lists of products.
There is no global chat room though, but there are optional "ask for help here" lists where all the team leads are likely to be paying attention.
Communication protocols are one of those good things to be sorting out too, from management perspective.
I've had this job for a few years now, and am pretty happy.
Profitability means nothing at this stage (and is sometimes even undesirable). As long as it is following the same growth path as more established companies in its segment, it can be considered a success.
Mongo reminds me of Tesla - early products were shoddy but had incredible hype.
"It's incredibly fast!"
"It's web scale!"
"It'll be able to drive itself cross country in a couple of months!"
And I think the unfounded/exaggerated hype bothered a lot of us, but like Tesla, the actual product seems to have improved quite a lot as they've had time and resources to throw at it. So sure, some of us remember Teslas and MongoDB from 2013 and scoff, but the current reality is much different.
It's already been established that hosting the Olympics in the current fashion is generally a money loser for the host city. All of those resources expended to build state-of-the-art facilities, housing, transportation, etc...with rosy ideas of how they might be repurposed after the Olympics....which generally don't come to fruition.
And that's when the Olympics actually occur, and the host city is able to gain some revenue from visitors coming and spending a considerable amount of money.
If Tokyo builds the required infrastructure and then no one comes, I've got to think future host cities will re-think this madness.
Personally I'd like to see a distributed Olympics, with mostly pre-existing facilities being used. Maybe swimming happens in Copenhagen, basketball in LA, beach volleyball in Phuket, etc. Maybe some events could be held in smaller countries or cities that had never been able to complete for a full Olympics before. A larger percentage of the world population would be local to some part of the Olympics, perhaps for once highlighting sameness rather than differences.
Or screw it, we could just let dumb governments keep throwing piles of money at this nonsense.
The LA Olympics are, from what I recall from a Bill Simmons podcast[0], going to be one of the cheapest to host in history. Salt Lake City also continues to use most venues from the 2002 games[1].
Some of the highlights from the podcast on the 2028 LA Olympics:
* Only major construction that is occurring is an upgraded temporary track in the Coliseum, renovation on USC’s swimming arena, and building a train line to the airport (which, IIRC, was in the long term plans already and is just being re-prioritized). The track from the Coliseum will be broken down and split among various high schools who can benefit.
* There are some additional temporary structures going up, such as bleachers for beach volleyball.
* The LA games are doing what you suggested and are using existing venues for almost everything. UCLA dorms are going to be the Olympic Village and USC dorms will host media. USC, UCLA, MLS, NFL, and NHL/NBA arenas will be used to host various events. There is no brand new permanent construction.
That's funny, I just had a bad experience with Microsoft. I applied for a job on their site that had several locations listed, one of which was of interest to me.
A recruiter sent me a bunch of questionnaires to fill out and then connected me with a Tech Lead for the initial phone interview. The Tech Lead introduced himself and the position, said the position was available in 2 locations (neither of which were my preferred location), and that was that.
I followed up with the recruiter and she expressed surprise, since she saw the same job posting I did.
A couple days later, Microsoft's site tells me I was not chosen for the job, no further information.
But of course, that's just one experience, and it's a large company, and all that. Maybe I'll apply for something else there.
That makes no sense, they are compatible with react, you just need to write more code to use them. https://custom-elements-everywhere.com/ I find it interesting that you blame WC not react devs for the fact they don't want to improve your experience.
Ah sorry, I meant to say "Web Components can just be dropped into any framework" isn't true. Note that you can also use React components in Angular or whatever if you just write more code to use them, but that just doesn't provide enough value to me to overcome the downside.
Also note that I'm not "blaming" anyone; just explaining why it's not worth it for me at this point in time to adopt Web Components in my React applications. I very much like the idea of Web Components no longer making us reliant on the web standards process to finally add things like date pickers or typeahead components, but I just don't think it's there yet.
It's still pretty early, and this won't be anything close to the last one. But with an emphasis on small size and white-label features, it's pretty close to the holy grail.
All N component sets usable in any app, w/o respect to some would-be-platform. Nice problem to have.
React and friends are looking more and more like oversized polyfills, every day.
