There has been a sudden uptick in return to office talk (despite plenty of reporting that covid is actually much worse than people realize now). Other people on HN have mentioned it and all of a sudden the leadership at my office, who were always extremely pro-remote work have suddenly started making mention of how valuable in-face communication is.
So the feeling of a "soft layoff" might be the intended effect.
The "good worker" narrative is there to justify management's decisions and reduce survivor's guilt, but you'll see when layoffs come amazing talent and mediocre talent are equally removed. Management has zero problem laying off incredible people en masse.
In the case of the return to office dynamic, you're specifically filtering out high-quality workers who also prefer to be remote, and the results are retention of all low/medium quality workers regardless of remote/office preference, and high quality workers who don't mind or have some reason that keeps them in the office. You don't filter out low-quality workers whatsoever because they'll at least go to the office to keep their job assuming they don't have options (or else they'd be higher quality workers or maybe they just leave the work force).
...everyone for whom a full return to the office is a breaking point. You assume that correlates with capability of the employeeto perform their job well.
That does seem reasonable, but it remains just that: an assumption. And you know the thing about assumptions : they make a donkey out of U and MPTIONS.
All this to say here in response that I'm increasingly irritated at the, what's the right word? Polarization? Radicalization? Politicization? Of work options and how those options are creating new tribes and battlegrounds.
https://covid19.sccgov.org/dashboard-wastewater
A week or so ago, it didn't look too bad. It is indeed much worse than I realized right now.
>These findings translate to one in five COVID-19 survivors aged 18–64 years, and one in four survivors aged ≥65 years experiencing an incident condition that might be attributable to previous COVID-19.
> Finally, the study only assessed conditions thought to be attributable to COVID-19 or post-COVID illness, which might have biased RRs away from the null. For example, clinicians might have been more likely to document possible post-COVID conditions among case-patients. In addition, because several conditions examined are also risk factors for moderate to severe COVID-19, it is possible that case-patients were more likely to have had an existing condition that was not documented in their EHR during the year preceding their COVID-19 diagnosis, resulting in overestimated risk for this group.
It also seems very possible that people with COVID diagnoses would be more likely to be on edge about their health / long COVID type symptoms. It also would have been nice if they differentiated things that can actually be tested for vs. things that can’t.
I’m not saying there isn’t an effect. I had bad cases of COVID twice. The first time I didn’t have any apparent effects afterwards other than my sense of taste taking a while to come back. After the second time - Delta - I definitely had some after effects.
We just need to be careful about claiming how many people get them. People are placeboing themselves into actually having symptoms (or thinking they do), and it’s hard to design studies to get around that.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1529477481127759872.html
Many of these are amenable to direct observation though. Research has already had many objective findings such as lung fibrosis, kidney function damage, abnormal liver function tests, shrunken brain matter (UK biobank study), etc. So the overall number might be debateable, but this is almost certainly going to have a significant impact on the number of healthy workers, not to mention the personal tragedies behind those statistics.
Here hospitalization and deaths are not following the infection curve at all. They are still following the end of the earlier omicron curve.
You need to draw a line between Covid and colds, or else count colds like Covid.
Here's the protocol: https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/surveillance/wastewater-sur...
Also, there is no common variant of COVID that is anywhere near as mild any virus we call "common cold". In the best case (Omicron for a young, boosted individual) it's comparable with influenza in terms of severity.
I imagine, too, if there are "100x engineers" (or whatever their role is) there may be compromise otherwise that's not generally applied; I would however think that someone who's that production - unless it's somehow a mostly solo role - would necessarily need to be on-site to utilize whatever resources necessary.
Isn't your Tesla supposed to be robotaxi, driving around autonomously while you work ? Why do you need parking spaces ?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-reportedly-sleeping...
Another instance of Tesla violating labor laws, this time to get out of paying unemployment....
TIL and now that I know the term, I think I've had several employers use similar tactics.
Should be enough time to evaluate whom to keep and not offending anyone directly by stating economic issues
It has since been learned that he had been reached by Business Insider to comment about the sexual abuse case beforehand. He already knew that an article against him was coming so he framed the narrative before it even reached the public.
I would not be surprised this was the same here. Tell everyone "Leave if you don't like it or we will fire you" when you very well know that 10% of the workforce will need to be dismissed.
This is pure speculations but would not be surprising at all. I cannot imagine that the company's management is unable to do the math on number of employees vs. number of workstations.
Same with Cybertruck and the Semi. They will come out eventually. It might be another 2-4 years, but they will happen.
I even think full self driving will eventually be achieved. It might be another 10 years, but we'll get there.
There is a big difference between Elon Musk pre and post-March 2018. For reasons that would take weeks to explain.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/elon-musk-calls-diver-who-helpe...
If there's a big difference pre/post-March 2018, it would be nice if you could point people in a direction.
Potty mouth is not a mortal sin.
The whole "pedo guy is just a generic insult" is a laughable lie that Musk tried to float in court. The evidence is that Musk tried to ruin a guy because he had the audacity to call out his publicity stunt when directly asked during an interview. You need to stop defending Musk on this because what he did was incredibly dick-headed and vindictive.
Nobody comes across looking pretty here, sure. But it's a real struggle to care one way or another about it. Sounds like that's exactly what the jury thought.
> Nobody comes across looking pretty here, sure. But it's a real struggle to care one way or another about it. Sounds like that's exactly what the jury thought.
The jury found for Musk because Musk didn't name the guy in his tweets. Thats why the diver lost. I don't think you can extrapolate from that verdict to "actually they were both equally bad."
Being called a cunt by some jackass Australian and being called a pedophile by a wealthy influential individual are probably going to have wildly different effects on your life and how people see you. being a cunt alone is not a serious offense that ruins the lives of everyone involved.
I would argue it's the strongest.
"Pedo" is one of those accusations that sticks around associated with your name, often even when it's false.
Knowing that, Elon Musk, one of the best known people on the planet at this stage, called this to a real person. This can ruin a person's life. Did he have any evidence, even circumstantial? Nope. Did he have a reason for this attack? Only that he felt slighted.
So Elon Musk is ok with potentially ruining someone's life if he even as much as feels slighted.
I think even is the strongest hint of what his character is like. And character is, you could argue, the most important predictor of future behavior. I took this hint of character at face value, and after that I've never been surprised when I've since heard accusations of fraud or sexual harassment. No surprise whatsoever.
So if your reaction to this is Elon Must has potty mouth, you're either breathtakingly stupid or dishonest.
It's a common South African insult, in fact I've heard classmates say it to one another in early high school for dating girls in late middle school. It's a word, people sometimes say it. There's a context. It wasn't a formal accusation. One in thousands of comments, you actually expect perfection from Musk and police?
Let me tell you as someone who has pulled off exactly that in 28 conflicts, as if they were 28 chess matches, I haven't fucked up this whole time. It's fucking impossible in the long term. Narrowest odds imaginable. That's not fucking up at all, much harder than merely winning 28 times in a row, which is already staggering. You have to let us fuck up sometimes, let it go. Someday I'll fuck up. Especially due to manipulation eg a racketeer as a last resort, when arrest was imminent, angled his back to get injured by police, in order to get a lighter sentence by countering the guilt of crime with an accusation of police brutality (SFPD police didn't fall for it, not even close).
The bad guys want us to fuck up, it's not easy to foil them every single time. Saying this is possible implies strict inferiority on the part of the bad guys.
And if you expect perfection from the police, you ought to tell them that next time you call them to come vindicate you. So they know you might yourself accuse them of brutalizing your victimizer.
“It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Obviously.
From the person that said one of his companies can fix Spinal and Brain injuries?: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1312
Surely...
Seconds later, the youtuber goes on to criticize Musk's disclaimer of "I'm not saying this is going to solve everything... it's something that _might_ be helpful."
You just can't win with these "skeptics".
The guy doesn't say anything, yet he makes everyone believe he did. Genius. The best salesperson in the world for sure.
So they will be content of spending the first decade "just" fixing spine and brain injuries: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1116
Then Elon Musk says he will solve Schizophrenia, Depression and Morbid Obesity: https://youtu.be/cgyFL5Hzy-s?t=1137
Yes,...really what is with the skeptics? Can't the recognize a genius when they see one?
Let me be clear: Musk is human. He has positive and negative qualities. His Thailand pedo comments were, to put it bluntly, fucking retarded. His autopilot timeline was wildly optimistic. His behavior on Twitter is infantile.
And yet this is not carte blanche to twist his words into something unrecognizable. You can't just criticize someone for not being nuanced, then criticize their disclaimer that happens seconds later. That's intellectually dishonest. At that point I stopped listening because it is clear (to me) that the youtuber has an agenda to push.
As to your comments, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is it incorrect to believe that brain implants may lead to solutions to these problems?
Lots of technologists speak about the potential of technology/industry/science. Roasting Musk for dreaming big is the best you can come up with? Especially given the other material he gives you?
I think we've seen recently with the Amber Heard case that it's better to let these things shake out in court first.
He said, "I am switching to the Republican party, expect political hit pieces."
He has turned his legal issue into a Republican vs Democrat issue. That's slimy regardless of the veracity of the allegations.
For years, he's donated to both political parties (as most of the ultra rich do). But for years, for every million dollars he's donated to the GOP, he's only donated just over 100,000 to the Democrats.
The only thing "liberal" about Musk is his attitude to weed (well, for himself, not his employees). Anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-trans, etc., etc.
Am I imagining that Trump and Elon were portrayed in the media as having a good relationship? Wouldn't you consider that leaning more Republican, especially considering Trump's radioactivity?
That's not the ordering of events I'm suggesting. People have commented over time how Elon has been "moving right" for some time now. I'm suggesting it's possible that the accusation re-surfaced in response to how his political alignment shifting overall. Him saying he's "switching parties" is a soundbite for the last 5 years of his politics.
A certain side of the political aside has been unhappy about Musk trying to acquire Twitter. We've already seen how the media treats the views of this group of people. A certain supreme court nominee hearing comes to mind. It really, really isn't a stretch to think they'd attempt similar things to Musk.
That is, if the allegation is actually false. If it is true, it is another matter. Musk isn't as pure as the wind-driven snow. But these sorts of things have to be based on evidence. The actual story was second hand information and the fact of a settlement doesn't prove guilt.
I personally think we can assume slimy tactics from everyone involved.
Did Musk do what he was accused of? Knowing his attitude most likely.
Did someone also have very large shorts opened on Tesla right before the story dropped, to expire a day later? Yep.
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/152743945535046860...
I think Elon himself helped to spread this conspiracy, when he would be fully aware it’s complete BS. This demonstrates to me that he is willing to engage in the dangerous game of pushing fake news on his blind followers to get them to go after his enemies, even if it makes no sense. These are the exact sort of people who should not have any power, because they’ll happily abuse it to cause societal harm.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/sep/29/axel-springer-...
Nobody I saw claimed he owns BI. He's a cofounder and the current CEO though and therefore does run BI. Just had to call you out on that for spreading a falsehood by trying to twist someone else's words while trying to make a claim about "fake news".
But I also never said it was him either, someone else did. I have no clue who it is and don't even want to get into a guessing game of it. It could be Elon himself for all we know. I was just pointing out that someone knew and opened the short.
One has to separate feelings about Elon from objective reality. Seems like a difficult thing to do for most comments here.
No one is exploiting anyone. It is at-will employment. Provides a living wage to thousands of employees to raise their families.
If wealth was stolen, then we'd not have any growth in GDP. 90% people lived in poverty in the 19th century. Capitalism improved lives of millions of people. Every single person is better off today than in 18th century.
You simply cannot become a billionaire without providing value to millions. Exceptions are inheritance and crony capitalists (often in bed with Gov).
Sergey Brin is rightfully a billionaire. He made the world better and so did pretty much any billionaire. I feel like media has been feeding people "Billionaire bad, socialism good" and people have stopped thinking for themselves.
He’s Always been a sci go nerd who backsolves his narrative.
Oh but who could have seen this coming except oh wait everyone.
The schadenfreude has been hilarious. Twitter has been blessedly devoid of the kind of chest-thumping he typically elicits and it has been glorious.
It’s crazy how one sided HN is. Seems entirely subjective and political. If one were to read the comments here, the only conclusion would be that Elon is the force of evil and a reincarnation of satan.
1) Political incongruency.
2) Character flaws.
3) Actions and actual impact.
These 3 things mix together in a toxic cocktail of hate (or love) depending on which side of the table you’re on. The sides of the table are primarily determined by 1) and the 2) and 3) are glued together to fit the narrative.
I am expecting more from HN tbh.
In a previous comment you(an HN user!) framed all comments or discussion that might portray EM in a negative light as painting him as:
> "...the force of evil and a reincarnation of satan."
A pitch-perfect example of a straw-man argument, and now you're claiming the level of discourse is not up to your standards?
I do expect more from HN than vitriol of this sorts.
Speaking of one sided... I'd argue there are many more nuanced conclusions you could derive.
I'm sure there have been comments towards him that are ad-hominem accusations of "evil", but in general and this thread specifically I think it's his virtue signaling around "free-speech" and "innovation" rightfully being called out for what they are; self-serving and quite vanilla capitalist maneuvering.
Setting up straw-man arguments like you've done is the same kind of defensive, fallacious reasoning his aforementioned zealous followers engage in.
Like Rick & Morty and Jesus, the worst thing about Elon tends to be his fans.
Brian Chesky directly ripped off a popular free product called CouchSurfing then said “ok same thing but I get to be a billionaire, local housing markets lose long term rentals in exchange for teenage keg parties, and I get to buy virtue signaling billboards all over SF cause I get to be rich AND morally superior.”
Then after we lionize those guys we can make fun of the Musk fan club.
English is my second language and I am curious on how you would achieve this.
From my point of view it is as barebone as it can be with 125 words, 7 sentences and 4 paragraphs.
I just realized that the Tesla could eject the worker a couple miles before the charging station, calculating the workout and charge duration so that the employee would have to run at the correct rate to retrieve their car before it was done charging. The vehicle could self clean while empty on the way to the charging station.
I can't think of any downsides to this.
Exciting times for the future of work!
EDIT: If your job in Tesla is on the line proposing working out of a Tesla is your best bet to save it.
Anyways, they can and will buy office space to put the desks when needed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/kvgtok/lan_party_ga...
I love how now they are justifiably out of fashion when just a few years ago only staid companies had cubicles or offices!
Later we upgraded to a room with twelve people in it where you had to ask at least two other people to stand up and move their chairs out of the way if you needed to get up for any reason.
Summer was a challenge because the A/C couldn't keep up at all.
And the desks were doors on sawhorses.
So in tesla's case, they'd just fire all the people who leave their desks in a fire?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/3500+Deer+Creek+Rd,+Palo+A...
I don't know about Austin, but with Fremont's public transit, it would take at least 40 minutes to get from the Fremont BART station to the Tesla factory on public transit. That doesn't count the time needed on BART from someplace with a lower COL (Fremont itself is a $$ place to live). For that, add at least another 1/2 hour (for nearest lower COL in Castro Valley or San Leandro). So, it wouldn't be unheard of to have an hour+ commute to Tesla Fremont on public transit.
Large and wealthy Bay Area employers like Tesla therefore run private shuttles for employees for this reason (a practice started in the current era by Genentech way back in the early 00s I think, and later Google popularized it among tech co's)
Maybe Austin has world class public transit, though I kind of doubt it.
I actually would give Tesla a bit of a pass on this since it is a factory purchased from GM/Toyota and it inherently needs lots of space, so you can't expect a train station at the factory gate.
Tech campuses like the Googleplex, the Apple spaceship donut, Oracle HQ on the edge of a marsh are where the failings of the public transit system are most apparent.
The traffic to the office is always awful, so a pleasant ride to the office, skipping traffic via dedicated bus lanes on the route, without needing to drive, sounds great to me in principle. I WANT to like this. I WANT to use this. But, there are several problems with it in practice.
For me, the bus is still significantly slower than driving because of all of the stops, even though it skips car traffic. For my wife, who needs to walk 10 blocks from the bus stop to her office, it's even slower.
My wife and I both get motion sick, especially if I don't get a forward facing seat.
Other people riding the bus smoke drugs, don't clean themselves & smell awful, scream loudly & incoherently, etc.
On the 10 block walk from the stop to her office, my wife saw homeless folks fighting, some screaming, and other smoking fentanyl. As a small woman, she did not feel safe, and informed me she wouldn't be taking the bus again. With our car, she can drive directly to the secured parking garage in her office, no safety risk.
We're going to stick to the safety, security, and speed of the car, thanks. It's not the lack of infrastructure, public transit is just a much worse experience.
None of this will get better, our transit agency doesn't even have the guts to reduce fare evasion via real enforcement because of the wacky political climate here.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/sound-transit-fare-...
Find a way to make public transit clean & safe and we'd probably ignore the other negatives listed above. Unfortunately, the political climate in the US in areas with adequate public transit makes that impossible.
On a different note, I rode Sound Transit buses to Redmond every day pre-pandemic and it was a pretty good experience. The seats were really nice and some even reclined! I think it is a bit slower than driving but I would rather sit on a bus for an extra 10 minutes reading a book than be driving in soul crushing traffic.
Fare evasion is a symptom; the real issue is it being politically unviable to have a police force actively riding buses and light rail.
Nobody is disagreeing that systems built around transit/biking/etc are better than car-oriented ones. They're saying that an individual in the latter system may still need to drive. In case you've forgotten, your original comment was in response to a specific individual, suggesting that he didn't need to drive.
Everyone chooses where to put homes and workplaces with transportation in mind.
In the UK people who commute by rail commute an average of 235 miles per year. [0]
I’ve had commutes of 150 miles per day. (Or 30,000+ miles per year) although that’s on the high end of what Americans might do.
The typical commute for people in my last office job was 30-50 miles per day. About 10,000 miles per year. About 1-2% of the people in our office lived in the same town as the office. This is in a top-50 metropolitan area of the US.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/466097/average-distance-...
Yeah, the American desire to have a large grassy lawn surrounding their house means density is far too low to make public transit viable.
> Even though average miles travelled for commuting purposes has declined to 799 miles travelled per person in 2020, a decrease of 37% compared to 2019 (1,276 miles travelled per person) and an overall decrease of 43% compared to 2002 (1,400 miles travelled per person)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-travel-sur...
So, still close to an order of magnitude less than my anecdotal data. The bottom line is that the US definitely has a lot of sprawl.
Is that even a serious argument?
Public transportation networks are designed to serve urban areas, with specific solutions catered to specific combinations of travel distance and throughput.
Hand-waiving by pointing out isolated individuals live in isolated areas means nothing. Mass transportation is designed to serve the masses, not hermits who chose to live far from urban centers.
Meanwhile, all those person's filling in those two-digit-lane highways live somewhere, and if they can pack a highway they certainly can be served by a suburban railway service.
Subway systems work well when people commute from the edges of a city to an urban center. Throw US suburbs into the mix, and you get some strange complications, like:
* suburbs that from adjacent cities that sprawl together -- the residents there may commute to different cities
* suburban office parks -- this makes it difficult to effectively meet people's needs with an affordable hub-and-spoke model, because large numbers of people commute not to the urban center, but between adjacent suburbs
Sprawling suburbs can be, and often are, served by public transportation. The critical factor affecting the US approach to public transportation, which is purely ideological, is the neoliberal belief that public transportation services are only worth considering if they are provided by private corporations and only if they are profitable right from the start.
Meanwhile, in the rest of the world these services are either public or public-private partnerships, and subsidized with clear externalities in mind. For example, if I recall correctly the Tokyo subway network is operated by a few private companies which profit not by the direct exploration of their railway lines but from real estate investments coordinated by the expansion of their railway lines.
Consequently, we have european capitals which coordinate urban planning (i.e., where suburban sprawls can and cannot be built) with coverage of their public transportation services, including investing in extensions of subway lines to deserted places where medium- and high-density housing projects have been approved.
> Subway systems work well when people from the edges of a city to an urban center.
Subway is not a good example in discussions over public transportation in urban sprawls. The main purpose of subway networks is to enhance mobility within a urban area. Consequently, typically you see subway networks with subway stops at 500-800 meters and travel speeds of around 50km/h, which just happens to be slightly better than traveling by car. Park-and-ride stops are only another aspect of the main goal of eliminating car traffic within the city.
The standard strategy to serve urban sprawls with public transportation is to cover them with bus routes which feed into a high-throughput mass transport systems such as commuter rail or bus rapid transit, also serving as park-and-ride stations.
> suburban office parks -- this makes it difficult to effectively meet people's needs with an affordable hub-and-spoke model, because large numbers of people commute not to the urban center, but between adjacent suburbs
This is not true. I happen to have worked for a company located in a suburban office park which wasn't served very well by public transportation, but the office park itself organized bus services from one of the city's multimodal hub to the office park.
Also, this is so common and mundane that I know for a fact that even some Ikea stores in europe located in industrial districts offer free bus services connecting public transport hubs to them.
I worked a job for several years where I could have taken either bus or light rail to work. I still chose to drive because I already had a car, my car had more privacy, I didn’t have to go outside in the weather, and I had more autonomy.
For public transit to compete, it has to be someone’s best option. Being usable is not good enough to cause people to switch.
Yes, you could build it all anyway, and that’s probably the only long-term solution. But it’s not politically popular. If not for budgetary reasons, then because people don’t want construction interfering with their drive.
In the end, I feel like we’re better off just concentrating on public transit in the neighborhoods that want to use it.
Very ineffective though, very limited hours, akward stops where you have to walking stretches with the sun beating down on you and the annoying unsettling noise of cars rushing past you on a main road, worst case the particular place they’re at doesn’t have sidewalk for a good stretch and they have to hug the grass line to stay out of the road and out of peoples yards.
I’ve lived in several small cities/large towns with primarily suburban areas, as well as highly sprawled MSAs and this describes any suburban bus system I’ve seen.
Needing to travel 30 miles for a grocery store applies to only a tiny, tiny minority of Americans here.
edit: some data to back up my point: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/june/us-shoppers-a...
> When the ERS researchers looked at rural food store access, they found that the median distance to the nearest and the third-nearest food store was 3.1 miles and 6.1 miles, respectively.
6 miles is pretty far to go by bike each way, no doubt, though 3 miles isn't too bad, especially if you use an ebike, and those are steadily becoming more affordable. That would be in the range of 10-15 minutes each way.
That said, the bigger problem right now is having decent bike infrastructure to actually get there, rather than the distance.
Live closer? How do people in Germany get a gallon of milk? Or Japan?
How is it that every country in the world is able to do this except us?
Ultimately physics will win here and we're going to run out of cheap gasoline and fossil fuels and you're going to wish you could walk a couple blocks to a neighborhood grocery store. Milk is going to be $7/gallon and gas is going to be $7/gallon and you're going to effectively pay $15 or more to drive to the store 30 miles away and buy that gallon of milk. The whole reason you're were previously able to live 30 miles away from a place to buy milk is because we've had cheap, subsidized fossil fuels. This is going away. There's no amount of oil we can drill for that will change this reality over the long term. No political party can "fix" this. Republicans can't open enough pipelines. It doesn't matter anyway. If you choose to live 30 miles away from the nearest house or grocery store, you also will incur the associated costs of doing that. Townships and other entities aren't going to be able to afford to repair roads. They don't have the money unless they raise taxes by a lot. Better get ready for that too.
Public transit isn't feasible in many places, nor are bikes. Why is that? It's because we've decided to make sure that this is the case and we've spread out towns and cities, and used zoning to make sure that there are no stores within walking distance of the suburbs just so we can keep wasting money building new roads and buying new cars. It's a hidden tax going straight to shareholders of construction companies, automobile manufacturers, and government officials who green light all highway and road projects with your tax money even when we could just change a few things and reap huge savings. It's mind-blowing every time I see these comments. "How am I supposed to do this? See it doesn't work? Well yea because you've decided to make it not work and then tried it and you're like "oh the thing I made not work doesn't work! See??".
Nobody is interested in "taking your car" and nobody is interested in forcing you to live in a place that looks like Hong Kong. What many people are interested in though is building in sensible ways that include cheaper and more effective transit options, like walking, biking, light rail, and possibly busses. 90% of your day-to-day needs should be within a distance that you don't need a car for. Everything else is incorrect and just won't work in the long-term for most people.
"Tesla expanded massively during Covid, as of now half of the dev team(including me) don’t have parking space or desk. It’s physically impossible for everyone to return to office.
"Should I ignore the email, or should I drive to the office and sit under the stairs?"
Commenters' general feeling was that it was a soft layoff, and some speculated that it might amount to constructive dismissal.