I've been remote for years even before Covid. RTO vs remote comes down to how and where you work best.
When folks want to go remote I ask them "when you were in school, did you study better in the library or at home in your bedroom?"
If they said bedroom, I assume they can work from home. If they say library, I think RTO makes more sense.
As much as I love remote, the best answer, like all things, is that best is relative to each person. What works for you doesn't work for others.
Imho the best approach to measure productivity is to see where people do their best work and support that. And if you think something works for you but it isn't (i.e., low performance rating), well... time to head into the office or find a new job. You, the individual, also have to be willing to change if you're not performing your best because you _think_ remote will work for you but in reality you're not nearly as present or productive.
Mandates, as the name implies, sort of admits that the ideal isn't best for {someone} otherwise you wouldn't need a mandate; people would naturally come back into the office if they so chose because it was best for them.
Is there a phenomenon that describes why I feel a sense of unease when I see the other maps? Seeing the various projections and changes of those maps left me _very_ uncomfortable and I'm not sure why.
But your comparisons don't factor in total cost of ownership and usage, and in fact many quality brands you do pay up for quality and better cost of ownership.
I can wear crocs at home. I would look disrespectful wearing them to a funeral. I can wear Alden anywhere though I might be overdressed for many occassions.
Aldens can be resoled and repaired and can last decades, the cost-per-wear can be very low. And many models of Aldens can be sold for a pretty penny (as an example these https://www.ebay.com/itm/394665864763 still go for nearly $300 even after years of wear). So if you bought Aldens new for $500 and wore for a decade and sold for $300 your cost per wear would be lower than that of the crocs. You would also be doing better for the environment by reusing the clothing and requiring less total material for your feet over a lifetime.
This also applies to a very few select watchmakers (and in fact increase in value). A Rolex or Patek Philippe has essentially beat inflation and would be considered a smart investment that made you money even while you wear it. A G-Shock would not offer similar returns.
Actually a lot of quality clothing can be like this. I thrifted a Tom Ford shirt for $40, wore it for a decade to weddings and funerals, and then sold it for $150. Certain makers are heavily discounted on second hand but retain their value. Borrelli shirts are some of the best on the planet. Would I pay retail? No. But you can buy them, wear them, and sell them second hand and pay virtually 0 to wear them over time.
Furniture is one where I've yet to find cheaper furniture paying off. A lot of particleboard furniture is awful. And it's all over Wayfair. The stuff I've had passed down or that I've bought that's lasted decades are all from North Carolina furniture makers. Not all of that stuff is expensive or high status but it is well made.
Expensive things are not always bad. Oftentimes the price is not justified. But it's not exclusive.
If you want to skip the article and go directly to the conclusions of the research:
> ...given all the data available on red meat intake and risk of a subsequent outcome, we estimate that consuming unprocessed red meat across an average range of exposure levels increases the risk of subsequent colorectal cancer, breast cancer, IHD and type 2 diabetes at least slightly compared to eating no red meat (by at least 6%, 3%, 1% and 1%, respectively). Furthermore, the conservative interpretation of available data is consistent with no association between consuming unprocessed red meat and the risk of subsequent ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke
In other words, very mild risk of _unprocessed_ red meat consumption.
Here's the thing - the culprit isn't the meat itself, it's the saturated fat within the meat. Fatty meats have more saturated fat, and the dose-response of red meat (which is generally higher fat than other meats) means it takes very little to hit general recommendations for saturated fat consumption (less than 10% of total calories).
Also it's hard to decipher what "processing" really is. Ground meat is processed. Bacon is really processed. But you have to cut up meat from an animal to make it packageable - this is all processing. What is "bad" processing of meat? What is "good"? Is there such a thing? Does the moment you cure the meat (i.e. bacon) make it "bad"?
This is how the general public is left with more questions than answers when research like this comes out. But if you stick to the canonical advice of eat lots of plants and a little bit of animal products, you're probably going to be okay. Keep saturated fat and sodium in check. Keep your fiber high. Don't smoke and don't drink to excess. Manage stress. Exercise. All that stuff in aggregate is what matters far more than a grass fed ribeye for dinner tonight.
This is a big deal because it’s only the second time in the publication’s history to do a cover-to-cover story on a topic (since one about code).
I’m not fully through it but I will say it starts a bit rough and suspect but he does a great job of clarifying points and providing accurate details on the basics of cryptography, blockchains, and the rise of digital currency.
