To my knowledge, not yet. The attack surface in question is extensive, and in my opinion, targets are likely unprepared for a determined and sophisticated attacker.
Submitter here, I posted because I think there is a confluence of interesting macroeconomic factors at work here. Certainly, immigration policy is factoring into this, as the restaurant industry is highly dependent on such labor. At the same time, we're still seeing 55+ leave the labor force rapidly (~4M Boomers continue to retire per year, ~330k/month), leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues to shrink. At the same time, we're seeing youth unemployment around 6%, including those with a college degree [1].
As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context). So, who can hold out longer: businesses and industries historically underpaying workers but "desperate for them"? Or potential workers? Because as long as US immigration is constrained, as a business, you get to pick from who is on the soil at whatever that market clearing price for labor is.
[1] Young men are struggling in a slowing job market, even if they have college degrees - https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/young-men-strugglin... - August 13th, 2025 ("Men ages 23 to 30 are discovering that a bachelor's degree doesn't offer the same protection from unemployment that it used to")
>As the piece mentions, young men are "staying on the sidelines" versus engage in low wage, low status restaurant work (in this context).
Why do you think young men would work at a restaurant? They don't make tips the way pretty young girls do. Restaurants certainly don't pay a living wage.
Have you tried ending tip culture? If you did that, you might find more young men willing to work there and more patrons willing to eat there once the expectation of 30% tips are gone.
The last 15 or so years of progressive politics are doing nothing for young men except demand they be "allies" so it's absolutely not surprising that young men have largely moved Right
The Right is promising to make them great. It may be a lie, but it's a better message than what the Left has for them
Edit: and before you get the wrong idea, I'm pretty progressive. I have consistently voted left my entire life. This is stuff I view as weakness on my own side, not something I'm projecting on my opponents
Organizing and unionizing, focusing on affordability, etc are what I’m referring to. “Good manufacturing jobs” ain’t coming back. If you want a good job today, it’s only coming through collective action to push wages up to living wages. There won’t be some magic that instantiates millions of good jobs for young men needing them, and even those with degrees are facing peril and economic insecurity. The jobs that exist are the jobs young men have to crank towards livability. Universal healthcare is a component of affordability, especially as it relates to family forming and the cost of US healthcare.
With structural demographics what they are, and labor slowly becoming more scarce year after year, the time is right. They took their chance on the Right, and polling shows some amount of buyer’s remorse.
I agree with you. There's unfortunately not a lot of will for unionization among anyone I've spoken to about it, though. Besides, companies are very ruthless when it comes to union busting. Especially in software, how do you unionize when your company will just fire you all and hire overseas workers to replace you overnight?
I am with you. I want to believe we can figure this out and collectively claw back from the corpos. I'm just discouraged because I do not think it's likely to actually happen in my lifetime
leaving only younger prime working age cohort, which continues to shrink
I don't think that's literally true? There are more Millennials (~22% of US population) now than Boomers (~20%) or Gen X (~19%). Same for Gen Z (~21%).
Or do you mean that for whatever reason, Millenials aren't participating in the work force?
Millenials (and some Gen X) have the highest participation rate since 2001:
> By contrast, participation among “prime-age” workers (25–54) has held relatively steady, averaging 83.6% since January 2024 and registering 83.8% in March 2026. It hit 84.0% in January, the highest since March 2001, with the current rate just shy of that recent peak.
> The US labor force is quietly shrinking, not because of a weak economy, but because of a demographic squeeze. The population is aging, fewer younger workers are entering the workforce, and relative stability amongst prime-age workers (aged 25-54) can’t fully offset the gap. The result, according to the BLS projections, will be roughly 4.3 million fewer workers by 2034 than would be expected if participation rates held steady.
> Each year, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) develops 10-year projections about the labor market. The latest projections for the decade stretching from 2024 to 2034 show a steady decline of the overall labor force participation rate (LFPR), from 62.6% in 2024 to 61.1% by 2034, a 1.5 percentage point drop over a decade. Given the size of the US labor market, that 1.5 percentage point decline represents roughly 4.3 million fewer people who are either employed or actively seeking work, relative to 2024 participation levels.
> The projections point to a demographic squeeze on the US labor market. As the population ages, workers move into older age groups where participation is lower. At the same time, fewer younger workers are entering the labor market, and prime-age participation rates decline slightly. Even with strong participation among prime-age workers and later retirements among older adults, the population is gradually shifting toward age groups with lower structural participation. The result is a slow but persistent decline in the overall LFPR.
Total Boomer cohort doesn't reach at least 65 until 2029-2030 per the US Census. One does not qualify for Medicare until 65. It matters because 55+ working age population cohort is load bearing in the US labor force at the moment.
> There are now 20 million more 55+ employed than there were in 2000, an equivalent of the entire workforce of Spain. This unprecedented demographic / employment transition is worth a closer look. As the second chart shows, some of this increase is due to the rising population of Americans over 55 years of age - an increase of 42 million. In 2000, 30% of those 55 and older were employed. Today, over 37% are employed - a significant increase in the percentage of 55+ people who are working. In 2000, only 17.6% of the 55 and older populace had a job. Now the percentage is 37.5% A 20% increase in the percentage of 55+ who are employed in a 20-year span is unprecedented. If the percentage of employed 55+ had stayed the same, there would only be 17 million 55+ workers today. Instead, there are over 37 million. This raises a question: why are so many older workers continuing to work longer than they did in 1990 and 2000?
(obviously, older workers are continuing to work because they cannot afford not to, although I'm sure there is some amount of folks who continue to work despite not financially needing to)
Even if you define Gen X birth years starting at 1965 (and not 1961 as some do), their oldest are already 61. So anybody between 55 and 61 is a Gen X, not a boomer. And for the 55+ group employment participation rate has been decreasing. Which does not mean that "boomers are retiring", it's Gen X's turn now.
Why did it fund sprawl? Why didn't anyone choose to develop density on existing sites? We built that stuff just fine from 1870 through the 1940s. What changed? Surely it wasn't the proliferation of government regulation of the development process (and the financials thereof) that caused developers to optimize for greenfield sprawl crap that could most cheaply check the boxes, get the cheap money, get the approvals, be compliant, etc, etc.
> Surely it wasn't the proliferation of government regulation of the development process (and the financials thereof) that caused developers to optimize for greenfield sprawl crap that could most cheaply check the boxes, get the cheap money, get the approvals, be compliant, etc, etc.
I'm sure white flight was a component, as well as subsidizing the auto manufacturing industry and a car centric planning model with federally funded highways.
Road funding is a big reason. Federal, state, and local taxes are used for roads, and more driving. Parking minimums required land to be dedicated to parking, further encouraging car usage for transportation and spreading out development with parking lots in between developments.
> Why didn't anyone choose to develop density on existing sites?
Existing sites would have had to not be developed enough to trigger a rezoning. If a different use was being proposed for land, then a zoning hearing would be needed, and parking minimums would have to be enforced. Thus requiring adjacent lots to be bought and redeveloped into parking unless exceptions were made. You can see remnants of this in some cities where amongst historic buildings and skyscrapers there are large surface parking lots.
> We built that stuff just fine from 1870 through the 1940s. What changed?
Quite a few things. Parking minimums as mentioned, euclidian/single use zoning, etc. I think one of the core things that changed is something that Strong Towns mentioned. Up until the early 1900s, municipal planners would try to project how much tax revenue per acre of land was being generated and how much tax expenditures were made for those areas. Over time, tax per acre or per parcel was deprioritized, and level of service for roads was used as an economic metric. More vehicles in an area means more economic activity (in theory), so municipalities started optimizing for more vehicular movement.
In the end, it was a lot of government regulation that resulted in this. From the federal level, to states, counties, and municipalities. It worked for a large portion of the voting populace, so it was generally favored.
Yes and no, not really. There are many smart grids and more not-so smart grids around the world, but only a few are non-commercial or owned by the members.
Fiberhood is unique in that we have our own Enernet power routers (a software controlled multi-port bidirectional AC-DC-DC inverter peer to peer network) that can share large amounts of DC current, has special power aggregation to enable megawatt EV chargers in every house, battery nano-inverters that make cheap batteries last up to 20000 charge/discharge cycles, integrate (free) discarded solar panels and has a range of software defined networking options including 4 x 25 Gbps internet ports per house. Most smart grids are just a different meter and payment scheme, not a radical rewiring of the entire electricity system in the neighborhood without a commercial company or government controlling what citizens pay. Other smart grids raise the cost of grid defection, Fiberhood tech makes it possible to have abundant redundant solar energy at its cost price $0.01 per kWh, many times cheaper than national AC grid pricing anywhere in the world. The tech was made to prevent making money on energy but incentivize solving the climate crises by making Solar by far the cheapest option. Stop almost all carbon and methane greenhouse gas emissions by going 100% solar.
Why should they? It's not the right time for that yet. Letting the price stay high despite renewable prices being lower means it's tremendously profitable to build new renewable sources, so there's lots of incentive for it to be done.
There's no incentive... Why invest in a less reliable source if you could endlessly purchase gas power for the same price? It slows the transition from fossil fuels and ensures that oil and gas never takes a loss.
I believe that no governing party has attempted to fix this. Generally - this set up benefits the oil/gas lobby, so efforts to change it will butt heads with them. UK also trades energy with mainland Europe, which can add a complication with how prices are set.
