If you're interested in a class of product, then you will be actively searching for it, and you're far more likely to be interested in unbiased reviews rather than paid advertisements.
What a lot of these tracking companies do is use your past search history - eg i was searching for lawn mowers last week, so show me advertisements for lawn mowers today. This is totally useless because i was searching for lawnmowers last week because i wanted to buy one, i did buy one, and now i have one so i don't need another.

Or perhaps their ai is smart enough to realize that some people never follow advertising on principle, and will even actively boycott products/brands that subject them to the most intrusive of ads.

If you have kids to take care of then going to an office doesn't change that, someone still needs to take care of the kids which means you'd have childcare expenses on top of the commute costs. There's nothing stopping you from working from home *and* paying for childcare, that still works out cheaper than commuting.

If you're doing something like sales then a fixed office is a terrible place - you should generally be either visiting customers, or communicating with them (phonecalls are better done from home where there's less background noise and interruptions).

If you spend more time at home, how about forming social connections with your neighbors? There are millions of people who don't even know their neighbors because their home is just a place to sleep and they leave early for a long commute. Getting to know your neighbors is a good thing, they can keep an eye on your property when you're away, or accept deliveries for you etc.

Depending on the location, laying someone off can be expensive and there are all manner of laws covering it.
Making someone's working conditions shit so that they quit voluntarily is often much cheaper for the company.

This, if i'm forced into an office i need to leave on time otherwise i miss the train schedule so it takes even longer to get back. If i'm office based i won't take a work laptop home, i'll leave it in the office. Can't claim i need to work in the office and then claim working remote is fine so long as it's after hours unpaid overtime.

And this is what has skewed results in the last few years - people who suddenly found themselves working at home without having prepared for it (ie no dedicated workspace etc) with the added hit of kids being around who would normally have been at school.

io_uring is an optional kernel feature, which you can turn off or compile out if you're not using...

Take out "from home"...
Some people are productive, some people are not. The location where they work has very little impact on that, it's just attracted more scrutiny and forms a convenient excuse. Those people who slack off at home were almost certainly slacking off in the office too only you were using a flawed "attendance" methodology to measure productivity.
I've encountered MANY people who arrive early, spend all day in the office and then leave late, but still don't get much done. If HR are measuring attendance these people get a pat on the back, but their peers end up having to carry their dead weight. If you have a good manager who's using a more sensible way to measure their performance then they quickly get identified.

Different jobs have different conditions, things you should have considered when choosing a career path.
Also for those who do still have to travel, removing millions of unnecessary commuters makes the journey a lot better - its the difference between an hour in traffic or a 30 mins easy drive, or having a seat on the train instead of having to stand for an hour. Long term it also serves to rebalance property prices so that you don't have to pay exorbitant prices to live close to your workplace.

Three days vs 0 days is a big step down because:

1) you still need to maintain a vehicle if you drive to work, vs possibly doing away with the vehicle entirely (many households have multiple cars for commuting but could do with just 1 or even 0 otherwise)
2) you still have to live within commuting distance of the office, so your still stuck with higher property prices
3) if you travel by train or bus buying 3 daily tickets is often only slightly cheaper than a weekly or monthly ticket
4) the company still has the full expense of maintaining the office, even if it now sits empty for 4 days per week

The best thing for the company, the employees and the environment is to have people work remote if the job allows for it.

There are work ethic issues associated with some people. These people will slack off wether they're in an office or not. I've known countless people who spend an entire day in an office and still fail to get their work done, just as i know many people who work remotely and get their work done reliably.

If someone is just going to slack off then they need to be fired irrespective of where they work, removing or limiting remote work for everyone is just bad all round (extra costs for the company, extra costs and burdens for the employees etc).

Also many kids hate school because they suffer bullying and peer pressure there. Having remote schooling completely eliminates that.

You do realise there are people living outside of the USA?

The planet is literally 71% covered in water, there is no shortage of water. If you're experiencing a localised shortage it's because of an economic decision not to treat or transport the water to your specific location, not an actual shortage.

And just wtf is "natural flavor"?
Most of these are extracts so heavily processed that they are now far from "natural", and they're hidden under the "natural flavor" banner because the real names would put people off.

That water isn't consumed or destroyed, it just gets slightly contaminated and continues the water cycle.
There's no shortage of water in the world, and there are known processes both natural and artificial to clean otherwise undrinkable water, plus the "drinkable" standard for farm animals is somewhat lower than humans anyway.