No one is owed a remote job. Unfortunately, if you work for the state, it is highly likely you don't have the skills and leverage to force the issue as most of the positions are just supporting some sort of bureaucracy and fundamentally have to exist because a lobbyist at one point got a law passed. State jobs, like it or not, are often effectively just political appointments.
Also keep in mind that you can't fire or terminate anyone, ever, in the state, so there's also a chance leadership feels this is the first time they can turnover roles that aren't doing much or meeting their goals. That's a very rare opportunity. If you think "rest-and-vest" is bad in tech, you ain't seen anything when it comes to government. Imagine jobs where no one has accomplished anything in a decade or more.
Of course you immediately jump to some sort of conspiracy though.
She’s a microbiologist. There aren’t any private sector jobs for her around this area unfortunately. It’s either the state or the university (also the state).
She applied and went through the interview process just like anyone else. There was no “political appointment.”
She isn’t allowed to work from home simply because one individual doesn’t like it. Her director refuses to allow it while the director in charge of the other side of the hallway does allow it.
It’s the result of one man imposing his will on others.
> it is highly likely you don't have the skills and leverage to force the issue as most of the positions are just supporting some sort of bureaucracy and fundamentally have to exist because a lobbyist at one point got a law passed. State jobs, like it or not, are often effectively just political appointments.
This tells me you haven't met or worked with very many people in state or federal jobs. I feel like this needs reasonable pushback.
SOME of the leadership positions are political appointments. The majority of employees are a highly skilled workforce supporting a specific mission of that particular state agency.
And "can't fire or terminate anyone, ever, in the state" is a bit off as well.
How many immigrants do you think grew up the same way? Hint: almost none, as the United States is the only country that enshrines true freedom of speech as an unalienable and fundamental right.
This is probably considered "hate-speech" in this day and age, but immigration, shockingly, has cons as well.
How do you get from your first paragraph to your second? Many immigrants I know are, if anything, more zealous about freedom of speech than other Americans. It was one of the reasons why they went through the trouble of immigrating here.
To be fair, well-integrated immigrants are also more likely to fervently value American freedoms much more than born Americans since they know what it's like to not have those freedoms and because people don't just go through the difficult immigration process without having some ideological affinity for the US. If it were just about quality of life, Canada, much of Europe, Australia etc are not that different and usually have easier immigration.
If you look beyond your short-sighted screed, you will typically find that most immigrants to the US value American ideals more than many Americans. In some cases that is caused by idealism, and in others it's having experienced governments which are actually oppressive.
I don’t think anyone needs protection from perception (unless clinical). I do think, however, that as a society we’re doing a terrible job of distinguishing relativism (personal perception) from reality (universal axioms).
The idea that someone has their “own truth” separate from the rest of the universe is one of the most absurd ideas in pop culture, imho. That a large portion of the population considers their perception universal reality makes it difficult to progress culturally.
Determining and disseminating truth is not straight forward but abdicating to relativism feels like devolving to the Middle Ages.
Usually people don't associate the Middle Ages with "relativism", it's more known for the crusades which were hardly an endeavour rooted in cultural relativism, although there were certainly relativists in the Middle Ages.
As you say, determining and disseminating truth is not straight forward and I think you really have to read between the lines when you hear people say things like "Hear her truth" is that these are often people who allege certain classes of people have long had their actual testimony ignored by society because of who they are. Also most of the time people say this, they're saying this regarding fundamentally uncertain situations where uninvolved parties can never be 100% sure of the truth. So there is a political/practical/contextual aspect to these epistemological statements.
The very last thread I was in somebody was expressing how unsympathetic they were to the scammed because they were stupid enough to get tricked. This wasn't a very popular notion, most people wanted to sanction scammers for their speech to protect the scammed.
Quite a lot of the laws around restriction of speech are specifically designed to stop smart people from exploiting less smart people. Smart people have to be censored or they will hurt less smart people.
It really depends on what the security team was doing. Saying they fired the security team sounds like bad PR, but who knows. Maybe they were just running scanners and couldn't prove value to a VP.
I think it was 5 employees. If each cost $200,000 (salary + benefits + office space + ect,) that means Patreon was spending $1,000,000 / year.
What were they doing?
I worked on a major product that was known for our security benefits, and we didn't have a team of five on "security." We made sure that everyone understood best practices, and eventually had a "head of security" that oversaw our product and other products as well.
If you want the whole dystopia in novel form, read The Water Knife. First half is incredibly enjoyable world building. Second half is a fairly mediocre action mystery plot, which you can skip.
The whole front range area was pretty incredible pre-marijuana legalization. Definitely changed since then. Your friends are right, Californians have been flooding in for a decade plus in greater and greater numbers, and unsurprisingly they bring the same issues they tried to leave behind. Before, that was mostly contained to the Boulder bubble. (homeless issues, loud yet empty activism, blue-no-matter-who, nimby policies, you know the drill).
Sure, Denver has more of a night life now and fancier restaurants I guess?
I’m not understanding this comment. Should women not have the ability to make their own income independently? Are you advocating that feminism purpose (not motivation) was not to ensure basic rights to half our species but to provide human labor to some capital machine ?
Also keep in mind that you can't fire or terminate anyone, ever, in the state, so there's also a chance leadership feels this is the first time they can turnover roles that aren't doing much or meeting their goals. That's a very rare opportunity. If you think "rest-and-vest" is bad in tech, you ain't seen anything when it comes to government. Imagine jobs where no one has accomplished anything in a decade or more.
Of course you immediately jump to some sort of conspiracy though.