This will be the basis of a wildly disproportionate, violent response aimed at anyone they want.

No, they will only want dissent bans.

Where did they cancel? Running only one (incumbent) candidate doesn't really count.

To be fair, it used to be a much better, more relevant site, which I only remember because I've been around since forever too.

A job is not a social club. You may need a mix of personality types, but if you lock yourself into a candidate pool from a tight geographic area, that'll be far more constraining.

You can't just make up a percentage based on anecdotal observation and expect anyone to take it seriously.

Generally, my online meetings work great. When there's lag, or for low-priority or asynchronous points, we use the text channel. No interruption. That's not really available in person. It also allows more input from thoughtful introverts, which typically get steamrolled and ignored in person.

How do you not know boingboing.net?

Anyway, that's not the source, but Rawstory doesn't allow ad-blockers, so I linked that synopsis.

https://www.rawstory.com/rs-exclusive/biden-debate-2668724330/

None of those, including my link, is accurate enough to really matter, especially this far from the election.

I'm not sure I'd put much stock in modern polling.

A study suggests the debate had very little impact, but even if it didn't, historically, changing candidates this late hasn't worked out.

https://boingboing.net/2024/07/10/impacts-of-the-presidential-debate-far-overestimated.html

There is work like construction, transportation, and customer service that can't really be remote.

I'm not sure if there's a good argument for work that can be done remotely to insist on both in person and remote work. It doubles the amount of workstation resources required, or compromises on at least one of them.

Maybe teams benefit from in-person communication? That's probably simpler for some that haven't found comparable online versions of whiteboarding tools or whatever. Good tools do exist, but feel people that haven't adapted to them by now, it'll take some real demand to make it happen. This might not be a characteristic of a highly effective team, though.

Most frequently, hybrid insistence seems do be more about justifying middle management, based on my highly unscientific observations.

He took a series of very shallow breaths, and then said as quickly and as quietly as he could, 'Door, if you can hear me, say so very, very quietly.'

Very, very quietly, the door murmured, 'I can hear you.'

'Good. Now, in a moment, I'm going to ask you to open. When you open do not want you to say that you enjoyed it, OK?'

'ΟΚ.'

'And I don't want you to say to me that I have made a simple door very happy, or that it is your pleasure to open for me and your satisfaction to close again with the knowledge of a job well done, OK?'

'ΟΚ.'

'And do not want you to ask me to have a nice day, understand?"

'I understand.'

'OK,' said Zaphod, tensing himself, 'open now.'

The door slid open quietly. Zaphod slipped quietly through. The door closed quietly behind him.

'Is that the way you like it, Mr Beeblebrox?' said the door out loud.

— Life, the Universe, and Everything

Allman is the way.

It was also the time when she watched a man die to save her life.

But voting third party doesn't actually accomplish anything. Take it from someone who did it for decades. It doesn't shake up or change the system, it just perpetuates the minority rule set up by Project Redmap.

The right way to do it is to vote your conscience locally, until there is enough support at higher levels. Skipping right to voting for third party presidential candidates is simply naive, I'm afraid.

Edit: Steve Hofstetter lays it out well (I wish I could find this one elsewhere) https://m.facebook.com/stevehofstetter/videos/why-voting-third-party-for-president-makes-no-sense/359024631794244/