Yep, but the contents of the article remain anyway largely nonsense.
The (queer) idea seems to be that Italian food is not traditional if it is not made from native ingredients, and that imports from the Arabic period (827-902) in Sicily do not count as Italian food, as well as anything in the post-columbian period.
Even jujubes (originally imported by the Romans and - quite frankly - of no relevance whatsoever) are somehow considered non-traditional.
This, BTW, is pure fantasy:
>The threat was great enough to drive Italy’s environmental agency to erect a chain-link wall around parts of Rome.
Turns out the guy in question was in fact a jackass (based on this clip).
I didn't read it that way.
But the far bigger point is that Musk was even more uncivil and obnoxious in his response to that situation.
That was no less than an outright personal attack. As an attempt to wiggle out of a perfectly valid line of questioning (aside from the "fucking mike" part) that he apparently has no intelligent answer for. Unfortunately the clip cuts conspicuously short after that point, so we can't know for sure. But that does seem to be the long and short of this exchange.
Having happy employees is very good for business profitability.
It's what these companies pretend to believe, at least.
Whether they actually, in reality, act in a way that make their employees happy -- or in a manner that is even fair or rational, by any detached observation -- is an entirely different matter.
Unstaffed hotels have a major (in my view, fatal) flaw staring you right in the face: poor security.
The one and only time I stayed in such a place - an intruder was caught entering my room and diddling with a phone I left there - and he only got caught because I happened to double back to get something, and just happened to do so while he was in there.
Never again. And the best part about staffed hotels? "I never have to use my phone, if I don't want to."
Slippery slope is only a fallacy when there's little to no evidence that you'll fall down the slope. When there is evidence or logic showing that it truly is slippery, it's not a fallacy anymore. Even from the article you linked:
> The strength of such an argument depends on whether the small step really is likely to lead to the effect
Some would say it is very likely for power-tripping HOA members to continue sliding down the slope.
Yes and no. If it's my money, if I don't spend it I will save it for another thing, so I have an incentive to spend less. I know they are trying to emulate the same incentive as a policy with that words. Personally I think that using the words "use common sense" would feel more honest.
If I’d spend my own money to stay at the Ritz-Carlton (I like nice places, I have the money to pay for it, etc.), then why does this make me a bad fit for GitLab?
Because you missed the crucial qualifying phrase, "every night".
The point of the policy wasn't that one should never, ever go out treat oneself to nice things. But that at some point, it get to be objectively (and grossly) inefficient and, to put it bluntly, reckless.
In fact, most people I know who in fact can afford to stay at the Ritz-Carlton every night (when traveling) don't, just as a matter of principle.
And yeah, they seem to also expect you to have a sense for what's called sound judgement, or shall we say business sense. That is, to know (at least approximately) where to draw the line, without an explicit policy for every last expense category.
And if you don't agree with this philosophy (or it isn't basically obvious to you) - then it would seem you probably aren't a good fit for GitLab.
(In the OP author's point of view, that is. The Ritz-Carlton analogy comes from them, not GitLab).
The more nights the company is asking you to travel away from home, the stronger the argument for the Ritz.
You seem to think more nights makes it a weaker case.
Travel is brutal, being away from home is brutal. The reason things like the Ritz and first class airline seats exist is that there are people who need to travel a lot and one way to keep them functioning at a high level despite the relentless pace is to provide superb comfort and service.
GitLab can decide to be that kind of company or not but when business travel becomes routine and frequent for one individual it’s dishonest to pretend they should scrimp like it’s their own much rarer leisure travel.
A quick search confirms that are -plenty- of nice, boutique hotels (in downtown areas of the usual fancy cities) offering perfectly decent rooms in the under $300/night range, even on short notice. The only reason we go for the Ritz's price range ($600-$900) is to tell ourselves (or others) that we stayed at the Ritz.
The ability to distinguish between the cost-value ratios of the two categories -- and to understand that yes, even for a large, successful company, unnecessary expenses of this sort do add up -- is precisely the sensibility that GitLab[*] is looking for.
[*] Again, a hypothetical GitLab - the Ritz-Carlton example comes from the blogpost author, and not from GitLab.
