Blooper

That’s addressed in the article actually. They had to program it so as not to cheat when they found it actually trying to cheat.

It’s different because you seem to be saying “workers should be able to be incredibly vulnerable to the whims of employers because employers should be good people”. The other guy’s response to that is “why would we ever assume employers are going to be good to their employees absent any mechanism to enforce said good behavior?”

An anecdote:

My high-paying tech job wants us back 2 days a week. I intentionally bought a house near a train that will get me to the downtown office in about 15 minutes while many of my coworkers live in the distant suburbs where commuting will require a lot more time and effort.

Despite this, I STILL don’t go into the office. The biggest reasons:

1. Nobody is there - it’s a ghost town.
2. I’m far less productive while I’m there because I have to leave early to pick up my kids from school.
3. My boss doesn’t go in at all - ever - due to extremely valid health reasons (his wife is undergoing cancer treatment).
4. His boss moved out of state. Like way, way out of state. He’s got a nice office with a beautiful view. He doesn’t and can’t use it.
5. My boss’s boss’s boss - (the CTO) moved to Florida and, rumor has it, lives full-time on his yacht.

I mean… at some point we just have to acknowledge that our giant, empty office space would be much better suited as housing.

I agree, but I still get a hard-on for the electric Hummer. Not because of the way it looks, but because of all the crazy shit it can do like crab walk and the huge ass battery it has. It’s actually a pretty amazing piece of tech.

-Bolt owner