I’m currently 100% remote, and to be honest I do sometimes miss having coworkers to shoot the shit with, and there absolutely are practical drawbacks to being remote – especially if you are the one remote worker on a team that is at least partially in office together. At least for me the benefits of being home all the time do outweigh that, on balance, but I’d be lying if I told you that I felt that I was as well-integrated with the rest of my teams as I could be, or that being just a voice and/or face in a video call doesn’t have some amount of impact on my long-term prospects.

That said, I really only miss a small handful of my in-office coworkers, and we still do make a point of grabbing lunch every month or three. The rest of the in-office experience can stuff it.

Be careful about that one, though. In addition to Word, for whatever reason iPhones automatically convert “–“ to “—“ so if you’re dealing with anybody like me who marks mid-sentence breaks with double dashes out of old habit, you’re going to get false positives.

Sorta yes and no. T-Mobile US is its own corporate entity, but their majority shareholder is Deutsche Telekom, and they take their name from that company’s mobile service brand.

Anti-discrimination laws in the US apply to discrimination based on what’s called a “protected class,” which essentially boils down to a small set of personal characteristics you’re not allowed to base a decision about a person on. For the purposes of housing, this includes race, skin color, and national origin, gender and sexual orientation, whether there are minor children in the family, and disability.

“Being somebody who the loan officer has a deeply personal vendetta against” is not a protected class, and if the original OP did in fact reject a mortgage application on that basis they’d most likely be legally in the clear. Whether their employer would be happy to know about it is another story, but if it was anywhere near a coin-toss decision I doubt they’d ever have to justify themselves.

I was hoping to avoid credentialiam, but… You assume much of what I do and don’t know. I grew up with a parent in higher education administration, and due to my own career I am regularly in communication with a range of R1 research universities, including two which I am currently preforming long-range lab space demand forecasts for. I have had a front-row seat to how the sausage gets made in higher education for the last three decades, and I am regularly talking to senior leadership at one of the top 5 schools in the US for medical research, specifically about these kinds of staffing issues and how the illegal impoundment of NIH and NSF grants are affecting them.

Am I intimately involved with the budgeting process at Harvard specifically? No, but then I’d wager you probably aren’t either, and it’s not that hard to look up stats about their endowment and do some basic math about them. You’re stuck on this one point that about 80% of is earmarked for specific uses, when their overall endowment is so enormous that that number is practically immaterial to the argument. (10% of it is specifically earmarked for the School of Medicine, by the way, which is where most of the lost grant money was concentrated.)

I am not proposing that there is some grand conspiracy at work to throw researchers out of Harvard. Rather, as the tone and tenor of the article linked above would suggest, Harvard’s administration is laser-focused on the money, and is starting from the notion that line must always go up no matter what. I don’t doubt that the usual academic politics is preventing the broader university from thinking that it might be worthwhile to share the load to keep scientists working while Harvard fights this, and that’s a shame.

Dude… my “janky math” is that 500,000,000 / 53,000,000,000 is ~0.01, or 1% versus the ~9.5% ROI they received on donations and investments last year. You can check that with a calculator app in about ten seconds if you doubt me, and my “conspiracy theory,” which you would have found in the post directly above if you bothered to actually read it, is that Harvard is making the shortsighted decision to hoard its cash and use the cuts as an excuse to cut perceived low-performing lab teams, rather than make a relatively minor outlay to keep everyone on, and make an implicit statement about the importance of research and the weakness of Trump’s hand here.

Did you read past my first sentence? They can replace the entirety of the research grant funding they receive from the government out of pocket and it would barely even dent the rate of growth of the endowment. You think you’re making a clever point here and you’re just not.

Run the numbers. 20% of Harvard’s ~$53 billion endowment is more than $10 billion that they can spend, no strings attached. Harvard receives just shy of $500 million per year in NIH grants. They could fund the next four years of their scientific research completely out of pocket, and it would only cost 4% of the endowment, and leave the overwhelming majority of their unencumbered funds intact. Hell, 4% isn’t even half of the endowment’s growth rate last year — they could do this indefinitely to make a point and still grow the endowment. Is reducing their annual net profit by ~10% small beans? No, but it’s entirely doable and wouldn’t create any catastrophic impacts on the rest of the of the institution.

For what it’s worth I am in regular contact with another R1 institution that previously received significantly more federal research grant funding than Harvard, with an endowment a fraction of the size. To my knowledge they’ve frozen new hiring and are planning to tighten their belts in terms of capital expenditure, but they have not moved to cut researchers yet. This feels like a short-sighted move on Harvard’s part, and I rather suspect that they’re taking the opportunity to cut perceived chaff more than anything else.

Posted to the wrong comment, whoops

Architect, so in the neighborhood… I mostly interact with UL in the context of fire-rated assemblies, though.

You’re acting as if Harvard has no control over the way they utilize the endowment, and that’s just not true. Of course they want to manage it so that they are only drawing from a portion of the gains rather than actually spending it down. Of course some percentage of funds are earmarked for specific purposes like new buildings, endowed professorships, and the like.

None of this means that Harvard cannot make the strategic decision to dip heavily into the endowment to maintain researchers’ livelihoods while their fight moves through the courts. Arguably it’s the fiscally-responsible thing to do, because many of the affected researchers are going to be losing work in progress that may have to be replicated if they are ever rehired, and some portion of those laid off are going to move on to other things, impacting Harvard’s research capacity and their reputation as a desirable, high-status employer in the sciences. One would have hoped that they picked this fight with the intention of winning it, and failing to tap the endowment as bridge funding while the legal challenges play out risks making it something of a Pyrrhic victory.

I recently switched phones and forgot I didn’t have an adblocker installed yet. Clicked on an article and holy shit the modern mobile web is a toxic hellscape without it…

In fairness(?) Ford bet big on small cars in the wake of the Great Recession, and that worked well for a while, but by the time they decided that the only non-truck (from a CAFE standpoint) that they were going to keep selling was the Mustang, they were losing money on every Focus and Fiesta they sold.

A lot of that was their godawful automatic transmission that was forcing them to spend zillions in warranty repairs, but at the end of the day the margin on economy cars is so slim that you can’t afford to make mistakes. Rather than bet on perfect execution in a market that was already shrinking in the US, they decided to focus on higher-margin products… and that’s fine in the short term, but as you mention it’s going to leave them exposed once nobody can afford to spend $50k+ on a horrifically overpriced big pickup anymore.

My family’s first computer was a 68k Mac, specifically a Quadra 605. I tried (and failed) to teach myself C++ using that system at the tender age of 9, but eventually moved over to Windows PCs. Had a Linux-based web server running on spare parts as a teen, though, and did succeed at teaching myself PHP and later Python well enough to hack together my very own blog software. Not very good blog software, mind you, but the critical thing was that it worked! Even spent a few years as and SMB sysadmin even though my degree is in [building] architecture.

Since then I’ve drifted away from the very deep end of tech world, but I would never say that first Macintosh stunted my skill.

(100% autistic tho, so ymmv)

Well then I hope I can have your vote, because my platform will be to use the sweeping new executive powers carved out by the current administration to throw every member of said administration along with every employee of ICE ERO into the “unextraditable foreign gulag detention” black hole, and only then work with Congress and the courts to make that impossible again.

Still is, at least to an extent. Bought a house 10 years ago for $110k, and while I’ve paid down about $30k of that between my modest down payment and 10 years of mortgage payments, the house has appreciated ~2x, meaning that I could potentially bring a $100k down payment to a new property. Even with everything else appreciating in the meantime, that makes viable many more options than I would have had if those mortgage payments had been rent checks.

In AEC work we’ve moved almost exclusively to a competing PDF tool called Blubeam, which is proprietary but very worth the price, with tools for scaling, dimensioning, and producing material takeoffs from PDF drawings. Much of what you’d use Acrobat for in a more typical office environment are absent or limited, though.

Got a reference? Pro-UBI and anti-billionaire as I am, I’ve done the math and I don’t think that checks out. Meaningful UBI has an annual price tag in the trillions, and even if you assume 90%+ top bracket tax rates there aren’t enough billionaires in the US to foot that bill. Other programs would have be discontinued and/or rolled in, and tax rates increased across the board.

If the parties involved wanted a clear moral solution there’s a very clear precedent in the form of South Africa’s truth and reconciliation process. For that to happen, though, Israelis would have to be willing to acknowledge Palestinians’ fundamental right to exist, and as I noted above they’re currently opposed to that by a 2:1 ratio, and Palestinians do not have the power or tools to force the issue. The international community would have to drag Israel to the negotiation table kicking and screaming, and as long as they’ve got the US on their side that’s not going to happen. Realistic political solutions seem remote right now, sure – but if you’re just talking about a moral one, it’s shockingly simple.