Why I Only Work Remotely • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#151

Post by X86BSD » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 12:45 AM UTC

citizens wrote: post #113

X86BSD wrote: post #64

A question to all of you who only work remotely, and I'm sure it's been covered by HN so forgive me, but where do you find reliable work that's remote? I can see getting lucky maybe and scoring one maybe two gigs that allow remote but a caterer doing it? When my wife's gig is up she would love to work from home. She already works from home two days a week. But she has no idea how to make a career out that reliably. S…

I only work remotely, but it does really limit the pool of available work. Weworkremotely.com is a good resource.

Thanks for taking the time to reply both of you. I've always wondered how those of you who are able to do remote 100% of the time do it. This helps get us started. Thank you.

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#152

Post by lacampbell » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:11 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #148

lacampbell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just scoring 'permission' to work remotely somewhere not used to it, is probably a recipe for a pretty bad time. Why is that?

Because the processes and mindset won't be setup for it. Decisions will get made in hallway conversations or even in meetings in which no one thought to send out a phone number for the remote employee to attend. Hence the idea that remote working is probably most effective when companies treat it as the norm--at least on a group by group basis.

Right.

I've actually never worked at a place with a large number of devs under the same roof.

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#153

Post by Nav_Panel » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:24 AM UTC

willholloway wrote: post #122

Nav_Panel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the future of work will be semi-distributed, and this mad consolidation into a few coastal cities will be seen in the future as a gross inefficiency. I disagree with this prediction. 1) If given the choice, most people would prefer to walk to their day-to-day destinations rather than drive. 2) In order to create an area in which most destinations are within walking distance of the residents, a certain level…

My main point is that Boulder gets the population density right. The town is inherently bikeable, which in my opinion is much better than a walkable town. And that is what I think we should be developing for, bikeable densities. And the bike of tomorrow is really a light weight electric vehicle, perhaps a foldable scooter with a small Lithium ion battery pack that is charged with a solar panel. Bicycles increase huma…

> The town is inherently bikeable, which in my opinion is much better than a walkable town.

It is your opinion that to get from your house to any other location, you need to use a bike, a task that many find more difficult (and dangerous) than walking in cold/rainy/snowy climates, and also results in having to pull out the bike (perhaps down some stairs) and find someplace to lock it up? That sounds like a lot of mental overhead for a brief trip to the deli.

I agree that biking is a wonderful way to get around (especially bike share, which I take advantage of regularly in Brooklyn for commuting and pleasure trips), but I also find it difficult to argue that it's inherently superior to walking in terms of community planning...

> the bike of tomorrow is really a light weight electric vehicle, perhaps a foldable scooter with a small Lithium ion battery pack that is charged with a solar panel.

This sounds pretty similar in concept to the Segway, and we all saw how well those worked. Not saying it can't work in the future, but there are certainly some challenges to solve before it can become mainstream (such as: what do you do in the rain? how do you remain charged in cloudy climates? how do they fit into existing traffic flow: with cars, or with bikes, or elsewhere? etc...)

> The result is a town that has culture, and restaurants and bars and a very usable public transportation system, along with scenic beauty and ample space so that one need not live packed into a tuna can.

You don't need Boulder-level (5k ppl/sq mi) density for this. Brooklyn or SF density will do, and will provide more reliable public transit than a bus network.

I personally find the Mission district coupled with Dolores Park and Bernal Heights to have ample space and scenic beauty for all my needs. Many cities neglect public parks, and they can make the difference between a dense but livable and a stifling neighborhood.

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#154

Post by wott » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:26 AM UTC

discordianfish wrote: post #43

secstate wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. If you're heads-down on a project and it's not contributing to the value of the product, there are other issues with your business than remote-v-office culture. If pivoting your engineering goals requires hallway conversations, there's something wrong. To be sure, not everyone is cut out for remote work, the same way not everyone is cut out for office work. For my part, I…

> If pivoting your engineering goals requires hallway conversations, there's something wrong. I agree but isn't there always something wrong? I'm in that spot, I worked mostly remote for the past 4 years and at every company it would have helped a lot to have a casual hallway conversation from time to time. It shouldn't be necessary but in reality it often is. It seem to me like you need well thought out, light weigh…

> I'm in that spot, I worked mostly remote for the past 4 years and at every company it would have helped a lot to have a casual hallway conversation from time to time.

I have never seen hallway conversations helping. Face to face, desk to desk conversations do indeed help, sometimes. In my case, according to my estimations, the time lost by not having those conversations (about 30-60 minutes per week) is very small compared to the time lost in: office distraction, office small talk, commuting(!), all the untold stuff you have to do to get ready for the office, nervous energy lost in all these, which easily sum up to 3-4 hours per day! So I can use part of the extra, say, 16 hours per week (that's like 2 work days!) that are free, to write detailed chats, e-mail, and pick up the phone.

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#155

Post by wott » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:34 AM UTC

SamBam wrote: post #42

babyrainbow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get you. What does a developer has to do with deciding what the business needs? If your job is that, ie, figuring out what a business needs, then by all means work closely with people..But I am not sure that is the type of work being discussed in this context.

If your job is doing exactly what you're told to do, and nothing else, then you'll find that you are very replaceable.

LOL, you think you are not? We all are very replaceable and very often replaced.

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#156

Post by Nav_Panel » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:34 AM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #119

Nav_Panel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the future of work will be semi-distributed, and this mad consolidation into a few coastal cities will be seen in the future as a gross inefficiency. I disagree with this prediction. 1) If given the choice, most people would prefer to walk to their day-to-day destinations rather than drive. 2) In order to create an area in which most destinations are within walking distance of the residents, a certain level…

The US has enough empty/low-density land in it that every metropolis west of the Appalachians could be shadowed by completely new cities, with other approaches to planning and density beyond just building around the ubiquitous automobiles. Then people and businesses can just gradually move in. This is something that China has apparently been doing for a long time, albeit with insufficient attention to quality control…

> In the US, it just seems like city governments are holding the city infrastructure as hostage to squeeze some more ransom money out of the residents, then shooting the hostage anyway.

I don't fully understand what you're getting at here -- are you referring to Urban Renewal policies? Or utilities/real estate industry corruption...?

> How much would it cost, really, to abandon an old, sprawly city, and build something that starts with a bunch of solutions to well-known urban problems that can't even be implemented when there's already a city in the way?

It would cost A LOT, and it would be stifling to live in if it looks anything like the new Le Corbusier-inspired Chinese cities. Some climates such as San Francisco simply cannot be replicated elsewhere.

Also, it would be devastating in a spiritual sense. I know this isn't necessarily the place to discuss a more philosophical/psychological topic, but the deep sense of tradition/history rooted in place is important in creating life meaning for many, many people.

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#157

Post by Nav_Panel » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:44 AM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #70

Nav_Panel wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the future of work will be semi-distributed, and this mad consolidation into a few coastal cities will be seen in the future as a gross inefficiency. I disagree with this prediction. 1) If given the choice, most people would prefer to walk to their day-to-day destinations rather than drive. 2) In order to create an area in which most destinations are within walking distance of the residents, a certain level…

Fashions and preferences come and go. And, for many people, they change based on their stage in life and changing priorities. There are tradeoffs associated with life in, especially dense, cities. Yes, walking to restaurants/stores/etc. can be nice. So can stepping out onto a deck or patio without a lot of noise and nearby neighbors--or the ability to hop in a car and be in forests or mountains in 30 minutes. Also, w…

> Fashions and preferences come and go. And, for many people, they change based on their stage in life and changing priorities.

I think the highway-focused building plans of the USA from the 1950s thru Now is the fad, rather than the dense city. Extremely dense cities were "fashionable" for the couple thousand years before that. You could argue this was because we didn't have sufficient transit technology, and you might be right, but it doesn't feel like a truly compelling argument against the dense city.

> So can stepping out onto a deck or patio without a lot of noise and nearby neighbors--or the ability to hop in a car and be in forests or mountains in 30 minutes.

(1) These things can certainly exist in a city if you choose a neighborhood wisely and (2) pretty much every dense city also has at least one suburb available for people who desire these things.

> If you have a "personal driver" at your beck and call, I have to believe that makes being able to walk to a nearby restaurant or taking the subway to see a play less compelling as tradeoffs against more crowded/noisier/etc. housing.

Compared to taking the subway, I agree.

Compared to walking, I agree that many would rather take a convenient, inexpensive driverless car, but a sizable amount would also rather walk, assuming the time taken to get from A to B is relatively similar regardless of mode of transportation.

Walking has a lot of benefits, but driverless cars really do throw a big "what if?" into the whole urban planning situation. I personally believe that many will want to remain in dense housing for the social/community benefits, but at the same time, we'll have to wait and see...

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#158

Post by wott » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:45 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #81

iguanayou wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first remote job started as an on-site office job, and I was able to convince my boss over time to eventually go 100% remote. My current contract is with a local company that happens to support remote work. I found this job through a recruiter. But like I said, it was a rare find. The recruiters I work with know that I'm looking for remote-only, but those positions are few and far between. My contract is ending so…

> The recruiters I work with know that I'm looking for remote-only, but those positions are few and far between. The biggest problem is that many companies that refuse remote work, don't have any issues outsourcing big piles of it to the other side of the planet.

Or having several offices across the country and departments/teams split between theses offices, resulting in having just 1 or 2 department/team members in a few of the offices.

The only difference with home office and the only thing that matters to them is that there is a warder (they call him a manager).

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#159

Post by wott » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:53 AM UTC

Nav_Panel wrote: post #44

willholloway wrote: post #23

I feel that gigantic metropolises are not optimal environments for software engineering. NYC, and it's helter skelter of noise and traffic and garbage and tiny living spaces, in my humble experience and opinion is not conducive to hard engineering problems. I am probably completely wrong here and just a hopeless introvert with an axe to grind, but from my experience, working in home offices in towns like Boulder, Col…

> I think the future of work will be semi-distributed, and this mad consolidation into a few coastal cities will be seen in the future as a gross inefficiency. I disagree with this prediction. 1) If given the choice, most people would prefer to walk to their day-to-day destinations rather than drive. 2) In order to create an area in which most destinations are within walking distance of the residents, a certain level…

Walking your day to day destinations, all of your destinations, is achievable in any 4000 inhabitants town, you know. You don't have to mess with calculating compared densities of big cities and deciding if you're going to invest 50 or rather 200 M$ per mile of public transit.

Re: Why I Only Work Remotely

#160

Post by morgante » Thu, Dec 22, 2016, 1:58 AM UTC

snarf21 wrote: post #68

d357r0y3r wrote: post #31

I rarely work remote even when I have the opportunity to do it; I'll explain. The author seems to have a single-mindedness about optimizing their own performance. If performance in terms of your value to the business was about sitting down at a computer and coding, getting in a "flow" state, etc, I would agree. Problem is, personal efficiency doesn't necessarily align with value generated. I've seen engineers spend m…

I agree with you. I personally am much more distracted at home because "I'm home". When I'm at work, I'm in work mode. I also find that I solve a lot of yesterdays roadblocks during my commute (20 mins each way) and the shower. Solving problems is not always about characters per second of new code. Over the years, I can't even count the number of times that I heard a conversation taking place and was able to step in…

> Most tech companies have hours ~8-6, because that is their customers hours too, not out of a mandate to irritate employees.

The majority of tech companies do not have hours 8–6. That's farcical.

Only truly archaic companies require developers to show up at 8am. More importantly, most developers are not on "tech support" duty so setting hours by customer call-ins is pointless.