While getting it in writing is good, it doesn't actually protect you. Vast majority of people are working at-will. Which means either party can change the terms of employment whenever. And if the other party disagrees then employment is terminated.
In this case meaning, if your contract says remote then they can change it to not remote at any time. That said, any company that will pull shenanigans like that you don't want to be working for anyhow as they don't respect you and that will impact you across all aspects of your work.
> Georgism (known historically as the single tax movement) is an economic ideology holding that, although people should own the value they produce themselves, the economic rent derived from land – including from all natural resources, the commons, and urban locations – should belong equally to all members of society.
Here rent and land are given precise definitions.
Personally I found the blogs above a very interesting read (or listening).
Depends on the local context. Here in France the legislation is already very clear that the right to housing is just as important as the right to private property, and there's legal provisions for "requisition" of empty dwellings. If you reside in a place that was one someone else's home (domicile) for more than 48h hours, it's supposedly your home and you can only be evicted by court order. The problem is the armed psychopaths (cops) will often evict you illegally, and judges will prioritize private property over human life.
There's many legal approaches to the problem: fine landlords huge amounts when they have unused space (or when they don't have enough people per square meters, such as when they employ "anti-squat" security agencies), requisition without compensation all empty dwellings in order to house everyone (with public money paying for repairs if needed), forcing by law landlords to lease their empty dwellings for a reasonable price... Or simply decriminalize squatting uninhabited dwellings: if the police stops hunting down people looking for a house in order to jail them, there will be considerably less homeless people from one month to the next.
It takes quite a lot of resources (security doors, guards, alarms, police) in order to ensure people stay homeless. The problem is by framing housing as a "crisis" (which is an invention, as the statistics show), we're shooting tons of money at not fixing the problem: homeless shelters are famously unsafe and indecent, and don't even get me started on government subsidies for hotel owners (via the 115 programs) to make business out of misery while providing terrible living conditions. In this case, i believe "less is more".
In this case there was moratorium. By my fair understanding is that at first point when rent was late, the process should have been able to be started. And then the moment the moratorium ended it should be absolutely possible to throw out the property thieves. After all they have had very very very long time to find alternate housing.
That's not what squatting is about, and that's not what i meant (you're building a strawman argument). I was arguing that "property" is an imaginary construct and cannot be "stolen", except in the sense that some person will evict you from your residence due to Nation-State-enforced belief in this piece of paper.
Of course personal possessions can and should be protected and there are in fact regulations (even in places where squatting is legal) protecting your residence against burglary or people coming to live in your place. This is a well-defined problem that has nothing to do with private property as we anarchists understand it.
Private property is precisely the institutional system that gives power to someone else over your home. We anarchists believe the land belongs to those who inhabit/work it and no higher superstitional paper (property title) is valid.
Fact checking is just censorship. It's literally a group that gets to decide what is an acceptable view and what isn't. How is that not just plain censorship?
You can certainly argue that censorship isn't always a bad thing. But calling censorship "fact checking" is purposely misleading.
Generally speaking, use the standard until you can't. Then just extend it and write up a proposal for your extension to make it into the next version of the official protocol.
I have no idea how Slack threads are intended to be used. Their own examples are very trivial and the implementation feels like like a first pass that they never did any usability testing with.
Slack threads seem designed to ensure you can't follow a conversation without branching off into numerous sidetracks, which are hard to find when you're directly addressed.
Food studies are all over the place because they never account for genetics.
Look up Nutrigenomics to understand more, But a great example is changes in the FADS genes and how they impact the intake of long and short chain Omega 3s
Things like upgrading the language version should not require coordination between multiple dev teams.
Of course there's 100s of permutations that work. Optimize for your situation. And if you have no clue what the right call is, go as simple as possible until it breaks on you.
While getting it in writing is good, it doesn't actually protect you. Vast majority of people are working at-will. Which means either party can change the terms of employment whenever. And if the other party disagrees then employment is terminated.
In this case meaning, if your contract says remote then they can change it to not remote at any time. That said, any company that will pull shenanigans like that you don't want to be working for anyhow as they don't respect you and that will impact you across all aspects of your work.