No, but I haven't seen Windows ask multiple times a day either. But iOS does try to get me to turn on iCloud every time the phone reboots and somewhat randomly without rebooting.
I was in Portland less than a month ago and had no problems. Sure, there was one time I crossed the street to avoid someone who was clearly homeless and mentally ill, but I never found myself feeling unsafe.
Unfortunately homelessness is something that can't be solved by one city or even one state. Feeding, housing, and getting them treatment is expensive and not something even the wealthier cities have the budget to do on their own. And the first major city that tries will have to deal with other places dropping more homeless people on their doorstep - that's one thing that both red and blue cities have been guilty of as you can read about at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/...
In my experience, the largest predictor for how often you run into homeless people isn't city size, how much money the local police have, or how the residents vote, but how walkable the area is. Homeless people go where traffic is, foot traffic especially, because panhandling needs an audience.
There is a big difference between feeling uncomfortable and being in a genuinely unsafe situation, and the less you are used to seeing the homeless, the more out of touch with reality your gut feelings are.
So you're telling me I shouldn't bother to take a split-second to glance down the street, but instead...
...grab my phone, unlock it, navigate to the app, wait for it to load, wait for it to figure out my location, wait for it to make an API call, try to figure out which of the two "34th and 7th" stops is the one going in the direction I want (since it's a two-way street with bus stops on both side of the intersection), click on one randomly, confirm from the first bus destination listed that I did click on the correct direction, otherwise go back and click on the other one, and then look at its ETA?
Sometimes it really is just better to use your eyes, to figure out that the bus is going to reach the bus stop in about 30 seconds, and that it'll take you 30 seconds of brisk walking to reach it in time, so you'd better start making a beeline now.
The problem is that proper studies on this topic will take years to really understand the positives and negatives of having the majority of your employees working remotely. --Researchers need to be able to track people through their careers to understand whether or not WFH is a net benefit to them and/or their companies.
So you're really going to have to deal with only hearing what people think.
RTO is trending for many reasons - some are doing this for bad reasons, I'm sure, but I also know that some managers are pushing for this because they a) see that junior developers aren't getting the necessary mentoring to help them develop and grow into seniors, and b) because they feel that people are spending more time on tasks because they're less likely to reach out if they have to ping people, wait for a response, and try to work through things without benefits like being able to draw on a whiteboard and such. --Maybe some companies are handling this better than others, but they are valid concerns.
To be clear, I'm not wishing for evidence of whether RTO is good or bad.
I want evidence that proves "it's about cheap layoffs" or "it's about real estate" or "it's because they want to monitor people" or "<insert any speculative reason on this thread>"
Once we have evidence"it's about layoffs" then we can debate whether it's ultimately helpful or harmful to cull headcount that way.
Every couple of years? My last Garmin lasted 5 years, and I only upgraded because the new model finally had enough new features that I wanted. Otherwise I'd still be using the old one. My "new" one is over 3 years old and still working fine.
It's not historically done. Printed newspapers obviously didn't have links and neither did televised news. Even when the news media started publishing online, it's not like the courts were quick to post the decisions online.
And there's also the idea that you should be able to at least somewhat trust the people reporting the news so they don't have to provide all of their references. --You can certainly argue that not all reporters can or should be trusted anymore, but convincing all journalists to change how they work because of bad ones is always going to be hard.
There is also the added pressure that some organizations quietly pile on editors to keep people from clicking out to third parties at all, where their attention may wander away. Unless of course that third party is an ad destination.
Reputable news organizations are more robust against such pressures, but plenty of people get their news from (in some cases self-described) entertainment sites masquerading as news sites.
I can imagine some scenarios where portions of the report may be privileged - if there are photos of people's apartments or unique information. But the summary with a list of deficiencies and recommended/required actions should certainly be provided!
The problem you'll run into is when the HOAs are responsible for common areas or shared infrastructure. In some places the HOAs are responsible for the roads and there may be a common pool, gym, or other amenities.
You'd be better off preventing HOAs from doing petty things like requiring homes to be painted certain colors and requiring them to have their books audited yearly to ensure there's no fraud or abuse going on.
Pretty wild that HOAs are not required to have audited books. Where I'm from HOAs are regulated by law, is registered as a legal entity, and therefore needs audited financials submitted to the tax man every year.
There is also a very powerful ombud created to mediate and resolve the kind of hoa horror story bullshit we often hear about online.
The HOA's authority should end at each homeowner's individual property line, in the case of a SFH HOA, and their authority should end at each condo-owner's doorstep in the case of a condo or townhome. So, sure they manage the shared amenities and infrastructure, but should have no power over the individual homeowners' property. There are probably reasonable exceptions to this, but I don't understand how it's justifiable that an HOA should have the power to tell someone how often to mow their lawn or what color to paint their door.
We used to have local governments provide that sort of thing (and still do to an extent). One reason for the prevalence of HOAs is that they have a much easier time keeping out the riffraff with uncomfortably dark skin, but maybe people will just have to put up with them.
Privatize it. If I want the road in front of my house fixed, I'll pay for it, I can get a pool membership, gym membership, or other amenities ad-hoc. Fuck the HoA.
Saying "you just need to want to learn it" is oversimplifying.
It's not just learning how to secure it once, it's constantly watching for announcements regarding new vulnerabilities and being able to patch at short notice or being able to pull the infrastructure offline if you can't patch right away.
The world is a different place now with what virtually amounts to criminal companies trying to find every vulnerability that allows them to get into your system and either holding your data for ransom, extracting it for their own uses, or both. Even if you really do want to employ someone solely to stay on top of patching and watching for vulnerabilities, it's safer and often cheaper to let one of the big companies host your data.
You are completely right. I just wanted to say that people fail even doing the right thing at a given moment, and they absolutely fail when the right thing is even changing.
Ubiquiti is honestly excellent when it works. When something goes wrong, though, their support really falls flat, as I experienced just this weekend when my Dream Wall died early on a Sunday morning. I'm still working with a makeshift network waiting for a replacement.
