hagopbul
- 397
- 45
What about the competition what if those companies try to tap into your ISP or vpn provider ? That is not hard when the employee are working from home
hagopbul said:What about the competition what if those companies try to tap into your ISP or vpn provider ?
gmax137 said:Getting an Invite in Outlook is hard to ignore. Unless I'm really really busy I won't just not show up on the call / Webex.
gmax137 said:I have two main concerns with work-at-home.
(1) I think companies will lose some cohesiveness. It is hard to create personal relationships between employees via emails and instant messaging. Maybe this is more an issue for old dogs like me, who didn't grow up with email, twitter, and online dating.
(2) I learned a lot over the years through chance conversations in the hallway or in the break room. It is hard to imagine that work-at-home will have as many serendipitous opportunities for the employees to cross-pollinate. While this may not show up as lost "productivity" I think it could lead to stagnation. It could hurt innovation and creative problem solving.

Narrator: rsk did make it to the new country, though the flying was very different from normal.rsk said:As a teacher, the effect on me has been the same as on most other teachers, a switch to online learning not entirely without glitches, but for the most part smooth (and removing the god-awful commute). It resulted in our school term being extended by two weeks and we finally finished yesterday. Saying goodbye to students online was very strange and sad. Had we been on site there'd have been hugs and tears but online it was just a sad shrug and 'bye then'.
Next week I should be moving country for a new job and the uncertainty regarding flights is my major stress right now - at the moment flights between the two countries are operating (having restarted just a week ago) but the curve is on the rise and further restrictions could be brought in at any time.
Fingers crossed.
rsk said:Narrator: rsk did make it to the new country, though the flying was very different from normal.
It was within the EU - I flew from Romania to Spain. Romania had just lifted restrictions on traveling from Spain the previous week so flights had only just restarted, and with the nº of new cases rising steeply, I was more than a bit anxious that either country might put the brakes on again.StatGuy2000 said:If you don't mind my asking, what new country are you in, and where did you fly in from?
I am asking I know that, as of this moment, American travelers (along with those from Brazil, Russia, and India) are barred from entering any EU country (due to the US having the highest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the world).
As opposed to what? You still didn't present a plausible plan that would have avoided it. Neither did anyone else, probably because there is no such thing.russ_watters said:It's an historic economic calamity we've inflicted upon ourselves.
mfb said:As opposed to what?
Huh?mfb said:As opposed to what?

How can you even ask that? You just replied to a post of mine in a 3,800 post thread that has been dedicated to discussing exactly that for the past six months!You still didn't present a plausible plan that would have avoided it. Neither did anyone else, probably because there is no such thing.

Huh? You don't believe that. You have been arguing the merits of various different approaches, real and hypothetical, in that thread. That the US botched the containment effort and could have done better may well be the only thing we've agreed on!Yah!The impact could have been much weaker, sure, see European countries for examples...
Who made that claim? Certainly not me....but a negligible impact is unrealistic.
Yes, and we still agree there. But the only thing the US inflicted upon itself is the detailed magnitude of the impact, not the fact that there was a massive impact.russ_watters said:That the US botched the containment effort and could have done better may well be the only thing we've agreed on!
Yes. I don't see this as a difficult concept. You order a restaurant to close, and as a result the restaurant loses income and goes out of business. It's a basic cause and effect.mfb said:You said "inflicted upon ourselves". That implies some action that caused it...
Most restaurants eventually go out of business, and there are host of reasons why that may be. If a restaurant is forced out of business by a lockdown today would have gone out of business anyway due to its own negative cashflow a year from now -- or an unfortunately timed case of bad lettuce, that's two separate cause-effect chains. It would be wrong to claim that the lockdown didn't harm the restaurant because it was going to go out of business next year anyway....without that action it wouldn't have happened.
That's an assumption based on your preconceived beliefs, not a conclusion based on facts and logic.Yes, and we still agree there. But the only thing the US inflicted upon itself is the detailed magnitude of the impact, not the fact that there was a massive impact.
I'll expand on this. ...and we discussed it in significant detail early in the pandemic.russ_watters said:The problem I'm seeing is that people don't attempt to identify or quantify the disease impact itself, but rather simply assume its existence -- or, rather, simply assume it would be worse than the lockdown's impact.
That's an assumption based on your preconceived beliefs, not a conclusion based on facts and logic.
People changed their behavior (including spending less) before any government measures happened in places where these government measures came late. We discussed this before, I see no need to repeat that. No economy anywhere survived this without impact. Even if you could magically keep the disease out of the country completely (without travel restrictions and their impact) you would still feel the effect of the overall economic downturn in the world. All this has been studied in detail.russ_watters said:The problem I'm seeing is that people don't attempt to identify or quantify the disease impact itself, but rather simply assume its existence -- or, rather, simply assume it would be worse than the lockdown's impact.
Of course it's based on facts. It's quite elementary, actually.russ_watters said:That's an assumption based on your preconceived beliefs, not a conclusion based on facts and logic.
Exactly. While the COVID-19 deaths are despite massive non-pharmaceutical interventions. Without measures that reduce the infection rate - at a cost of reducing GDP - the death toll would be much higher. This is not limited to government measures, this includes personal measures taken by people. Your extrapolations are not even trying to take this into account. And again you use the result after methods to reduce the infections to argue that the disease was never so bad anyway.russ_watters said:This is with a vaccine that sometimes works, and near zero non-pharmaceutical interventions.