I don't know if there are agencies focussing on this, but in general it probably comes down to the company more than the agency. Probably worth filtering for companies offering flexible hours in the description

I would say at the moment the IT job market is incredibly competitive for candidates, so it might be even more difficult to find truly flex roles when they can so easily find 100s of people who just work regular hours.

On your last question: I've been a hiring manager in 2 companies (although in the UK) for software engineers and adjacent roles (like devops, platform, QA) and I would not care whether someone needs equipment. In the big scheme of things spending $800 for a monitor, keyboard and mouse is not even a drop in the bucket for the cost of an employee. What I would want to know is how do you work in a team in your situation and what arrangement can we do where you have a good experience, but other people in the company can still count on you. E.g. if you are working on a project and an issue pops up that's blocking others from progressing and we need you to discuss, but you're having a bad day and not working, what are the options you can offer? Or what if you get blocked when everyone else is asleep so you can't progress?

I think being prepared and upfront about this in an early stage of interviewing would be ideal, it signals that you have thought about others around you and also weed out any companies who aren't willing to make this arrangement work. That being said, as above it's a very competitive market right now so chances are pretty slim (at least in the UK).

Also keep in mind once you look at companies who hire from abroad, you're now also competing with (comparably) cheap labour from developing countries, who will likely agree to much worse terms.

Edit: one thing I forgot, you may have the option to be your own boss (depending on your skill level) and freelance on a project basis rather than on a per-day basis.

How do you see this in person and resist going outside to say hi..

I think coffee shops would be happy with a regular, if you buy something. Otherwise, maybe mix it up, go to different places?

If the weather permits, park? Either benches or just take a towel to sit on in the grass.

You can also read in bars, they're probably pretty quiet during the day, but once again you'd have to buy something.

Maybe a weird one but churches are often available to the public and they're quiet, with seating. Might be worth to check with someone there if its OK.

If they are open to the public, museums or galleries could be a thing.

Encroaching on homeless behaviour, but if the public transportation tickets in the city are valid as long as you stay on, you could try finding a less used line and just go around in circles on something.

I get the convenience part so the staff doesn't have to go around do it by hand, but it just seems infeasible to do it for the other examples mentioned.

E.g. you go in, pick up item listed for $10, finish shopping in 20 mins, item now costs $15 at till.. probably leave it (so now the staff has to re-shelf it) and start shopping at a place that is not trying to scam you.

For the other example, if there are a few packs of something expiring and they reduce the price for all the items on the shelf, everyone will just take the ones which have a reasonable shelf life left leaving the expiring ones.

Both of these just seem stupid.

Bold to assume the plural.

I try to buy all ebooks, unless they only sell on Amazon.

I feel like anyone who already had a know-how to change their DNS will just change to one of the other hundreds of free servers and the people who couldn't be bothered to switch to google DNS will already have been "blocked". Or they are using a VPN already..

No problem!

Your thinking seems more insightful than mine.

My reasoning that he is mainly after the money is that in the past year he has been paying a lot of legal fees and fines, while trying to run a campaign. He had his NFT collection which made him a quick buck to then immediately floor in value, same for trump media stocks - except they then skyrocketed again, and now flooring again. So.. Just seems like something he'd do.

The 2nd reason is that crypto is a very divisive topic with loads of people hating on it - including banks and some other financial institutions. I'd expect it's a double edged sword for supporters, but maybe he's gaining more from it than losing in terms of votes.

Considering that it's been a few days since he made his statement and there hasn't been massive movement on BTC price, he's either not influential enough to impact it or I was wrong.

/shrug

Sorry, but I think you're reading into my words something they didn't say or imply. In fact I tried my best to avoid wording it in a way that implies crypto is a scam (because I don't believe it myself).

What you've quoted strictly implies 2 things:

1. There are people who consider crypto a scam
2. Everyone will regard crypto as a scam after trump's future actions.

The 2nd is definitely an exaggeration, but neither of them claim crypto is a scam only that it has an image that it is - which I maintain it does with a significant portion of people.

I do think trump picked crypto as a target for his attention because it's a volatile and under regulated market he may be able exploit to try to make money off of whoever listens to him. I hope I'm wrong though.

I didn't say crypto was a scam, but it is regarded as a scam in general and as you said, it's pretty easy to get scammed trading it or using it if you don't know what you're doing - which would definitely be true for anyone buying in on a public figure's advice.

It's also an incredibly volatile market which is relatively easily influenced by large players without much regulation. If he does have the influence to manage to impact it, I am pretty sure he would happily take his gains from his followers. If he doesn't, well let's just hope all the people who buy in without any research don't lose their money by selling as soon as the next crypto winter comes for a massive loss.

What I expect will happen: have his followers buy in at current high price point -> price goes higher -> him and his rich whale friends sell -> price goes down -> the people who just invested because he promised big stonks but realistically can't afford to leave their money in for years panic and sell -> price goes down -> him and rich friends buy in again.

Sure, it's mostly his followers getting scammed, but if this does happen I can't imagine them not vocally blaming BTC for losing their money - which would likely fuel the crypto is a scam narrative.

Maybe his words are not influential enough to actually sway the price and nothing will come of it though, but based on the previous things he has done (his NFTs, the truth social stocks) if he has the opportunity to take money from his supporters, he certainly will.

Use the buddy system. Years ago I had a work-friend, we'd just book meetings with each other a couple of times a week, go to a meeting room and just hang out, I taught him to juggle, or we'd watch an episode from a series etc.

It was fun feeling like we got away with something, but realistically nobody questioned it because we both got our work done and it was a good company where that mattered more than time spent at a desk.

Everyone who has not regarded crypto as a scam will certainly do, once he's done with the pump and dump he's setting up here.

Honestly, even if you don't terminate SSL right until your very own app server, it's still based on the assumption that whoever holds the root cert for your certificate is trustworthy.

The thing that has actually scared me with CF is the way their rules work. I am not even sure what's the verification step to get to this, but if there is a configured page rule in a different CF account for your domain that points at cloudflare (I.e. the orange cloud), you essentially can't control your domain as long as it's pointing at CF (I think this sentence is a bit confusing so an alternative explanation: your domain is pointing DNS at your own CF account, in your CF account you have enabled proxying for your domain, some other CF account has a page rule for your domain, that rule is now in control). The rule in some other account will control it.

It has happened to us at work and I had to escalate with their support to get them to remove the rule from the other cloudflare account so we can get back control of our domain while using CF. Their standard response is for you to find and ask the other CF account to remove the rule for your domain.

This is a pretty common issue with gitbook, even the gitbook CEO was surprised CF does this.

I wonder if this will also have a reverse tail end effect.

Company uses AI (with devs) to produce a large amount of code -> code is in prod for a few years with incremental changes -> dev roles rotate or get further reduced over time -> company now needs to modernize and change very large legacy codebase that nobody really understands well enough to even feed it Into the AI -> now hiring more devs than before to figure out how to manage a legacy codebase 5-10x the size of what the team could realistically handle.

Writing greenfield code is relatively easy, maintaining it over years and keeping it up to date and well understood while twisting it for all new requirements - now that's hard.

Good point, thank you for pointing it out.

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that a report from the investigator could qualify what they considered/found when they said the claims were false, baseless etc, and any evidence they found/data they had access to. (E.g. if they could look at all internal communication but their data retention policy is 6 months and this happened 7 months ago, its not the same as not finding anything)

For example, "allegations of sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed" is a wide range. It could be there were no allegations recorded from the employee (as in, they weren't reported), or they were addressed by a slap on the wrist or a "just don't do that again" to introducing workplace behaviour training, forcing the perpetrator to go through it, suspending them without pay and so on.

You are right it's not proof of no wrongdoing, but it would serve as proof that they handled things in a generally suitable manner, rather than that they managed to twist things around to check a box for the investigator.

Release an actual report of the investigation by the third party rather than a statement.

What claim was investigated, what proof did they find if any, what evidence did they have access to etc.

Finding no proof of wrongdoing or proof of no wrongdoing is a big difference.

Yea idk.

After having dealt with some audits (although not this exact topic), in general they followed the same format. "Assert that we do the thing we claim to be doing". So if the thing they claim to be doing is a low bar, the audit means nothing. If they dont release any evidence, or a report of what they were ascertaining it means very little IMO.

I can't remember if the employee released any evidence with her claims either though, but in general I'd prefer my odds with assuming her story is closer to the truth against a company which has had other mishaps recently, underpinned by evidence. All of which they tried to brush under the carpet.

So yeah. I'm pressing X for doubt.

Oh cmon they don't hoard the money. They use it to pay each other/politicians to make sure the status quo remains.

I wish you were the one writing the laws, this would be awesome.