What does this mean in non-corpo speak?

That's a shame. I was hoping for an Apple AI independent of advertiser influence.

Oh, well. What could have been great.

Employees accept work-from-home & look for a work-from-home job. New applicants see on-site only and apply elsewhere.

Choices:

1. Hire desperate people who will come in 2. Accept that high-talent staff are unavailable to your company 3. Pay 30% more than the market for on-site staff

I’ve been saying this too.

I would go as far as to suggest that any CEO who stubbornly and credulously insists on RTO from an ideological perspective should be treated with a healthy level of distrust by the company’s shareholders.

Why else would you deliberately choose to reduce your talent pool, be forced to pay more for that talent pool than your competitors, and result in a lower employee NPS, which in turn makes it harder to retain them.

RTO only works when WFH rates are low and the talent pool is forced to accept RTO. However we crossed that rubicon.

Now insisting on it as a CEO just makes you look incompetent.

Wasn't the internet full of hand-crafted made for google dog shit before?

Keeping this sort of secret knowledge to yourself is so isolating, but sharing it only makes it worse.

Pretty soon, the only people who find your company enjoyable are malthusians, christian apocalyptics, and emos. I mean the smiths are great, but have you heard....

Banks make money holding onto your funds. They invest those funds overnight for risk-free returns.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

― Upton Sinclair

Rivian won't enforce this as they want access to Tesla charging stations.

Rivian signed an agreement with Tesla recently to do just that and start next year.

whispers If only more people could work from home

> When does an old iPhone become unsafe to use?

As soon as the new model is released ;)

>>If anyone knows how to pay an existing company to extract carbon from the >>atmosphere, and store it in a biologically inactive form for > 1000 years, >>then I'd love to hear about it.

They're called trees.

If global warming were about reducing carbon dioxide, we would be planting them in every available square inch of open ground.

We could but global warming makes even that pretty difficult. Trees don't fare so well in droughts or extreme heat.

Though I suppose there's still plenty of areas that are viable and some that were previously too cold becoming moderate.

But trees are also not super great for carbon capture. At night they exhale CO2 as we do and they don't absorb a lot. Even if we did cover every practical inch with them it would still take so long to capture it all that the worst of climate change would have long happened.