341–350 of 396 posts
> Many people simply do not have the space allocated inside their homes for an office setup, and it can be too expensive to move to a bigger place. Because they're stuck in the expensive city where their employer offices. If WFH means location independence and mobility, these employees will eventually find the space they need and can afford. At the moment, they're stuck in limbo.
I've been working remote for about 10 years. I've had "real" offices. I've worked in open-plan offices. I've had a home office. I've worked from bed. There are tons of good ways to do it. Lately I swap between a kitchen table and a chair on my porch. I no longer use multiple screens, I've just gotten really fast at swapping windows on my 15" laptop; I've gotten good at figuring out how wide my terminal window breaks…
> screen real estate isn't a big factor in getting stuff done for me Lately, I've been wondering if less screen real estate actually makes me a better programmer. Being able to simultaneously have 6 files open across two large monitors with a lot of vertical real estate means that messy code doesn't hurt me as much. In fact, I'm pretty sure the only reason I do that is to facilitate dealing with messy code. I no long…
I used to have two external monitors and it was always frustrating to dock/undock and re-arrange my windows. That was why I transitioned. But I've seen no reason or negative impact on my work to drive me to return to multiple screens.
HackerNews often talks about how task switching and multi-tasking negatively affect focus. I wonder if those same people think multiple monitors contribute to either of those. On my screen I only ever have one window; it feels more intentional. On three screens I had email and teams on one, a browser on another, and my IDE on the third. Surely that's more distracting, no?
Initial Google results seem to sing the praises of multiple monitors. Am I truly unproductive on my one screen or have others seen the same benefits? How can "productivity" even be quantified?
I've been working remote for about 10 years. I've had "real" offices. I've worked in open-plan offices. I've had a home office. I've worked from bed. There are tons of good ways to do it. Lately I swap between a kitchen table and a chair on my porch. I no longer use multiple screens, I've just gotten really fast at swapping windows on my 15" laptop; I've gotten good at figuring out how wide my terminal window breaks…
That's work from home brilliantly summarized, very true. However, I have my doubts about productivity in smaller teams and startups. Being in the same space physically I think speeds up a lot of things. In small teams and esp. at early stage startups your whole day is a meeting where things are discussed and resolved spontaneously. Sometimes it is important to have an environment where information is exchanged dynami…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being in the same space physically I think speeds up a lot of things. In small teams and esp. at early stage startups your whole day is a meeting where things are discussed and resolved spontaneously. Who's going to write the fine-detail code if they whole day is a meeting? It may change from case to case, but for some small teams the biggest challenge is to produce something so good that it out-competes the produc…
>Who's going to write the fine-detail code if they whole day is a meeting? In a start-up ? You around midnight. Believe in the mission bro.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's work from home brilliantly summarized, very true. However, I have my doubts about productivity in smaller teams and startups. Being in the same space physically I think speeds up a lot of things. In small teams and esp. at early stage startups your whole day is a meeting where things are discussed and resolved spontaneously. Sometimes it is important to have an environment where information is exchanged dynami…
I work remote at an early stage startup, I’m not sure you’re right. It might be faster to work together but only by the amount of time it takes to type. We’re on slack talking all day and have video meeting when needed. We work fast as it is so I’m not sure we’d gain much by being in person (other than social stimulation.)
> Many people simply do not have the space allocated inside their homes for an office setup, and it can be too expensive to move to a bigger place. Because they're stuck in the expensive city where their employer offices. If WFH means location independence and mobility, these employees will eventually find the space they need and can afford. At the moment, they're stuck in limbo.
Many people choose to live in a city. Not everyone wants to live in the middle of nowhere.
Choosing to live in a city for reasons other than officing there is a choice. Given the choice and the preference for city life, would they choose a lower cost city where they could afford more space?
I've been working remote for about 10 years. I've had "real" offices. I've worked in open-plan offices. I've had a home office. I've worked from bed. There are tons of good ways to do it. Lately I swap between a kitchen table and a chair on my porch. I no longer use multiple screens, I've just gotten really fast at swapping windows on my 15" laptop; I've gotten good at figuring out how wide my terminal window breaks…
I never understand the ability to work on a laptop. For me it would be a significant blow to my productivity. How do people do it? I have 3 full monitors, one for running 10 or so processes that I can glance at stdout, then the other two monitors for having many different editor files open, numerous data plots, and multiple reference guides open, etc.
For the past 2 weeks, I've been working from a treadmill. It has been incredible. I got a small under-the-desk treadmill for my standing desk and I walk at about 2.5km/hour and get around 20,000 steps in per day. It has improved my mood, my clarity, and also has improved my sleep (because I'm tired of walking). I also find it easier to focus on tasks for some reason. If you can make a setup like this work for you, I…
Picture tech people walking on their treadmills for compensation and then picture gerbils running on wheels for food. Picture tech people drinking Soylent and then picture gerbils eating pellets. The world is whack. People are substituting artificial things for the natural things that made us happy in earlier times. Walking on a treadmill vs walking outside in the sun and shade amidst plants, trees, and other living…
Like, this is the most normal thing that it works this way.
This naturalistic fallacy nonsense is so tiresome. “Oh wasn’t it great that we lived in nature and got eaten by bears”. No. It sucked.