This is a really frustrating issue with criticism/response to Taleb.
Taleb: "There are problems with A because of B reasons"
Response: "B reasons prove A"
I really don't understand why this is so common. I don't fully agree w/ Taleb that the academic demographic he tends to pick on is so lost to navel-gazing that it is completely unable to understand the context of his arguments, but it's really odd how common this is.
To clarify, I'd love to see someone who actually understands Taleb's arguments to push back at him from the same premise. He says some really controversial (and potentially hugely important) stuff that needs to be challenged and peer-reviewed just to get a basic second opinion on it. This has yet to happen really because of what I described.
The discussion on this from the pro-encryption team has to move towards explaining it in terms of national security, as national security is the reasoning the anti-encryption group uses.
National security is a major trump card across parties and administration, and will have to be responded to versus ignored, as that's where the argument is coming from.
It's easy enough to explain that Russia has mathematicians, ISIS has mathematicians the same way they had chemical engineers for the oil fields, China/PLA has mathematicians, etc.
The same fear mongering that is allowing an anti-encryption argument to advance can be used to fear monger right back towards encryption and be based in truth: Russia and terrorists can access my chats.
For the pro-encryption crowd, we know this is actually feasible technically and the end result of backdoors. We just have to explain it on common ground, where the argument lives.
the graphics are a great addition. Seems like this is targeted towards a non-technical audience, but finally making an effort to explain what's going on technically like other STEM articles from do from generic news sources. Nice job if you're an author
good point, there's precedent from hospitals wrt IRB and other infrastructure involved w/ data gathering. Hospitals/research institutions self-regulate in this regard, doesn't appear tech does
This is generally how I think self-driving will squeeze out human-driving, through regulatory capture. Don't love it for many reasons, but there is precedent.
Disagree, shoes/clothes costs are not at all compatible with the costs associated with physical location of work costs.
Accounting departments spend a great deal of focus on fixed asset depreciation for tax purposes, and general office planning. Eventually, work places move to new buildings- office buildings get old and in disrepair from use.
These costs that a company accepts as part of doing business get offloaded to the remote employee. It's most certainly a planning factor doing business- check out a SEC form for instance.
With remote work, that cost gets offloaded to an employee. You won't see the impact on your house for a long time, but unless companies are subsidizing you to afford a bigger home to account for additional office space needed, that wear and tear from use, that asset deprecation as a result of work use, comes into your actual home.
So the question should be along the lines of:
- where is your fixed asset depreciation as a part of doing business for your taxes? Are you filing it? Your company certainly is.
or
- are the remote work benefits enough for having to accept this cost without financial augmentation
or
-are you getting paid enough extra to cover this.
Odds are most workers who work remote won't/don't consider this, but your company certainly is for its own workplace, why not you? You've leased out part of your home for your company's workspace essentially, but done so free of charge.
what isn't discussed though is companies offloading many of the operating costs onto employees, and whether that is covered. It's a great tradeoff, but worth being aware of it and asking for coverage:
- increased electricity costs
- increased wear-and-tear of your home
- increased housing expenses (requirement for a 'office' space in your house)
- infosec vulnerabilities: home networked and physical environments now become vectors into a company, are you being compensated and covered for the risk
- business DR planning: a DR plan becomes much more complex, although perhaps better-hedged, with remote work.
etc.
This already became a bit of a thing when personal phones became a requirement for work, and companies to be fair did adjust fire w/ provide work smart phones.