Eh? Vaccine effectiveness at preventing transmission dropped off precipitously with each new variant. Is your suggestion that preventing in-job transmission was not the purported purpose of workplace Covid vaccine mandates?
> I would moreover argue that if a government scheme can be sabotaged like this in the first place, the government scheme is itself at fault [...]
This is the weirdest argument. I mean, you seem to be arguing for some kind of government that's not answerable to elected leaders or voters? I mean, how else would you be able to run a program that couldn't be shut down by the leadership of an organization - public or private?
Shutting a program down is transparent. What GP said was that ineffective government programs, and red tape more generally, are uniformly due to some sort of devious intentional sabotage by the other side. My argument was a response to that.
That's a thing nowadays. Trevor Noah talked about this type of biased thinking recently. While it is true there may be a machine in the future that can do what Holmes claimed, there are still people who worked at the company who claimed it was impossible due to our current understanding of the laws of physics.
> While it is true there may be a machine in the future that can do what Holmes claimed
No, there won't. I feel the need to keep repeating this because for some reason many people seem to conflate "it is not possible with current technology" with "it is a physical impossibility". Doing accurate quantitative blood tests with a finger prick is a physical impossibility.
All that said, one thing that made me especially mad about Theranos is that a lot of their ideas, e.g. one small, portable machine that can run tons of tests; simplified, consumer-accessible pricing; access at neighborhood pharmacies, etc., had a ton of value even if accomplished with venous blood draws. But instead Holmes' delusions of grandeur forced her to hang everything on the fraudulent, and impossible, "must be done with a finger prick" idea.
I said may be. What is impossible is to negate a "maybe". While there may be physical limitation now, that doesn't mean there will be later. New understandings of physics may change that, as would new technology that wouldn't normally be researched along a given path to an idea or need (like a very small machine operating on very small samples). For example, we may find a way to use neutrinos to detect things we didn't know we could detect before, because someone theorized that doing XYZ with neutrenos allows us to detect them.
That "discovery" (hypothetical) could then be repurposed to build a small machine that does what Holmes thought it could. Not that she thought about stuff like that - she was designing their stupid building instead.
The point I was making was that not knowing now and then saying will will know later at which point "someone becomes right" is a biased way of thinking. My point was not to say there will or won't be, which is why I used "may be".
For us it was supposed to be a rotation, with people in on different days so you're still doing all your meetings on Zoom but now you need to drive an hour to do it.
Had to go in one day a week to spend the day on Zoom to the team overseas we where working with. Two to three hours lost a day commuting to use Zoom at a desk in the office instead of Zoom in my home office.
Ironically the days we where forced to go in where the least productive days as we’d catch-up with other colleagues, get coffees, get lunch etc. We looked busy though and that’s what the CEO wanted, it was a one day check in for all intent and purposes to make sure we where not slacking at home.
Even assuming that you are correct in your absolutely ridiculous assumption that self-driving cars are about controlling the movement of the population, why would you think it would be government control and not control of the company that is trying to develop the self-driving technology?
All the articles posted regularly on HN about governments requesting data on users from companies --- and the latter obediently doing so --- aren't enough evidence?
Paying people to complain about things has never made much sense to me. Roger Egbert was the laziest form of entertainment. Reviews are pointless in an era of ubiquitous communication, and public critique never truly leads to better art as much as it leads to safer art.
I'm against the article's existence, but I'm also against the idea that the author should be told to complain about romance novels, too. The criticism of the criticism is bad, but the initial criticism is still boring and offers nothing new.
