Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 243 posts

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#41

Post by rebeccaskinner »

timr wrote: post #19
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #4

My guess is that the current market conditions will accelerate the market toward whatever the new normal will be. Companies that hated having to give into demands for remote work will use this as leverage to get people back into the office. Companies that were going to look at remote work as a way to save costs (either by hiring from cheaper regions, saving on real estate costs, or both) will be pushed into those dec…

> decrease worker efficiency by encouraging repeated Covid exposure leading to both more short term leave due to sick employees and less effective employees in the long run due to long Covid PSA: this is wild speculation. There's no definition of what "long covid" is, and there's certainly no evidence that it is made worse by getting Covid more than once. If anything, the opposite is true: we know that repeat infecti…

You are (mostly) wrong. The definitions of long Covid are indeed a bit inconsistent for now, but there’s evidence that both repeated infections do tend to be worse with the omicron variants (possibly due to t-cell exhaustion but I’m not sure if that’s the only factor), and that repeat exposures are at least not protective against long Covid (this isn’t settled science yet, and there are a lot of confounding variables, but the recent studies I’ve seen seem to put the risk of long Covid at somewhere between 5% and 30% each time you are infected). To the extent that there are good consistent definitions of long Covid, they tend to agree that neurological symptoms- including brain fog and reduced cognition, are frequent (not a majority, but still common) symptoms associated with long Covid. Looking at cognitive effects in particular, some UK studies estimate that the impact is actually quite a lot higher than is reported, and is common even in people with asymptomatic or very mild initial symptoms. I’ve seen at least one estimate that puts the impact of an asymptomatic Covid infection on the brain as being equivalent to 10 years of normal aging.

The cognitive effects don’t seem to be entirely evenly distributed- the impact is bigger on older (40+) people, and I’ve heard (but not read the study) that people with ADHD are also much more likely to experience cognitive issues after covid.

Covid is also not yet endemic. We are still in the pandemic phase- there is not yet a regular and predictable load of infections or a reasonable model for the evolutionary trend of variants. In any case, endemic does not mean not dangerous, it just means predictable and well understood.

Calling it a cold virus is also just a rhetorical trick to downplay the severity. Yes, some colds are caused by other coronaviruses, but covid19 remains far more severe on average than any of the other common coronavirus infections that we lump in with common colds.

Finally, it’s probably true on our current trajectory that most people will be infected multiple times, even people that work from home. Given the evidence of compounding risks, it’s still better to prevent whatever vectors of infection that you can. It also gives people more flexibility in their own risk tolerance. I’m still avoiding bars and restaurants, but many of my coworkers aren’t. If we were in an office I’d be obliged to take on a much higher level of risk due to unavoidable exposure to higher risk people.

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#42

Post by marcus_holmes »

JasserInicide wrote: post #35
Uptrenda wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't take it personally. You should expect a large number of companies to ghost you. It's just part of the process. Keep going and believe in yourself.

It's just ridiculous though. It's a shitty trend that's filtered down from social/dating applications. A decade ago, I always got a follow-up rejection email. Sometimes it took months from bigger companies but it still came. Today: more often than not you're just ghosted. Milliennials now being in positions of power are 100% to blame for this. They see no difference between the conversation with a job candidate and t…

I think it's more the trend of companies being scared of litigation. They can't be sued for discrimination if they never actually turned you down.

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#43

Post by waylandsmithers »

jelling wrote: post #37

For some hard data, in San Francisco and NYC, the mass transit agencies are starting to plan for never getting back to full ridership again. And by plan, I mean starting to ask for federal funding to keep the systems alive (which I think they should) because the fare revenue is never going to return to pre-pandemic levels but the physical plant remains just as expensive to operate. Keep in mind: these are two of the…

Boston too is switching some lines permanently onto weekend schedules with less frequent trains

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#44

Post by akhmatova »

Uptrenda wrote: post #12
mathverse wrote: post #5

I interviewed with 3 companies all remote positions and have been ghosted by all 3 of them.

Don't take it personally. You should expect a large number of companies to ghost you. It's just part of the process. Keep going and believe in yourself.

You should expect a large number of companies to ghost you. It's just part of the process.

I would say no - it's not part of the "process". Every company swears they are against ghosting (and are "shocked" when it gets publicly exposed), but they all keep doing it anyway. It's a reflection of the cynical, emotionally immature nature of this industry.

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#45

Post by akhmatova »

nimajneb wrote: post #15

I don't know if this answers your question, but my employer (engineering firm) just announced last Friday that starting July 5th being in the office Tue-Thu is mandatory. Then Sept 5th Mon-Fri is mandatory. Pre-covid there were very very few remote positions at my employer, we are going back to that I guess. I've been going in Mon-Fri anyways, so it doesn't really effect me.

My employer just announced last Friday that starting July 5th being in the office Tue-Thu is mandatory.

Then you need to remind your employer that your presence on the team is not "mandatory", but rather optional. In the form of the 2-week notice you give once you have found a much better job that also respects your health and sanity.

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#46

Post by timr »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #41
timr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> decrease worker efficiency by encouraging repeated Covid exposure leading to both more short term leave due to sick employees and less effective employees in the long run due to long Covid PSA: this is wild speculation. There's no definition of what "long covid" is, and there's certainly no evidence that it is made worse by getting Covid more than once. If anything, the opposite is true: we know that repeat infecti…

You are (mostly) wrong. The definitions of long Covid are indeed a bit inconsistent for now, but there’s evidence that both repeated infections do tend to be worse with the omicron variants (possibly due to t-cell exhaustion but I’m not sure if that’s the only factor), and that repeat exposures are at least not protective against long Covid (this isn’t settled science yet, and there are a lot of confounding variables…

> You are (mostly) wrong. The definitions of long Covid are indeed a bit inconsistent for now,

It's not a matter of "a bit inconsistent". There is no definition of "long covid". Literally anyone can claim they have it and not be wrong.

> but there’s evidence that both repeated infections do tend to be worse with the omicron variants (possibly due to t-cell exhaustion but I’m not sure if that’s the only factor)

No, there isn't, and "t-cell exhaustion" is not a thing. It's a phrase made up by pop scientists.

> I’ve seen at least one estimate that puts the impact of an asymptomatic Covid infection on the brain as being equivalent to 10 years of normal aging.

There are, sadly, a large number of irresponsible people making hysterical, pseudo-scientific claims with no data to back them up. This is a great example.

Even if it were possible to quantify "10 years of normal aging" on "the brain" (it isn't), the specific claim advanced here -- asymptomatic infection leading to accelerated 'normal aging' -- is not backed by any evidence.

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#47

Post by rebeccaskinner »

timr wrote: post #46
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are (mostly) wrong. The definitions of long Covid are indeed a bit inconsistent for now, but there’s evidence that both repeated infections do tend to be worse with the omicron variants (possibly due to t-cell exhaustion but I’m not sure if that’s the only factor), and that repeat exposures are at least not protective against long Covid (this isn’t settled science yet, and there are a lot of confounding variables…

> You are (mostly) wrong. The definitions of long Covid are indeed a bit inconsistent for now, It's not a matter of "a bit inconsistent". There is no definition of "long covid". Literally anyone can claim they have it and not be wrong. > but there’s evidence that both repeated infections do tend to be worse with the omicron variants (possibly due to t-cell exhaustion but I’m not sure if that’s the only factor) No, th…

> It's not a matter of "a bit inconsistent". There is no definition of "long covid". Literally anyone can claim they have it and not be wrong.

Individual studies tend to look at different things, but most of the relevant studies give a particular definition. It generally involves symptoms 3,6, or 8 months after an acute infection, and some studies further limit the definition to a particular set of symptoms. Most control for the occurrence of those symptoms in the general population too.

> No, there isn't, and "t-cell exhaustion" is not a thing. It's a phrase made up by pop scientists.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-019-0221-9

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2021/july/pe...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34288064/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7389156/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41423-021-00750-4

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#48

Post by fatnoah »

ketzo wrote: post #18

This doesn't quite answer your trend, but personal anecdote: I recently switched jobs, and as part of my job interview process, I was pretty firm about only looking for companies that were working at least part of the week in the office. I just really thrive on in-person work. Fast forward a few weeks... and I ended up taking a job with a startup that was fully remote. I loved their product, loved the founders, loved…

I had a very similar experience when looking for roles in the fall. I explicitly wanted to makes sure there was an office to go to and ended up (via a personal) connection, applying for a fully remote role where there was a local office I could work from if I felt the need.

Seven months later, I've gone to the office a total of 4 times, and two of those were because I had other appointments/errands nearby that day. I've surprised myself at how much I didn't miss the office environment.

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#49

Post by idiotsecant »

CoffeeOnWrite wrote: post #39
ketzo wrote: post #18

This doesn't quite answer your trend, but personal anecdote: I recently switched jobs, and as part of my job interview process, I was pretty firm about only looking for companies that were working at least part of the week in the office. I just really thrive on in-person work. Fast forward a few weeks... and I ended up taking a job with a startup that was fully remote. I loved their product, loved the founders, loved…

I'm happy for you! Out of curiosity, did your current housing situation provide the space for a comfortable and productive home office, or is this unexpected development putting pressure on your housing situation? (If you're part of a trend, that has implications for preferred housing layout and square footage. And, of course people in different housing situations should be expected to respond differently to fully-re…

Can people really tell anything about your living situation from your teams call background, though? Just aim your camera at a neutral wall and you're good to go. You could be living in a giant palace or a inner city slum and nobody would know the difference.

Re: Ask HN: How is the remote vs in-person trend looking?

#50

Post by bityard »

At the beginning of the pandemic, the CEO of our company was very adamant about working from home being a temporary situation, with all of the usual explanations.

Although I still have to go into the office occasionally to things that can't be done remotely, midway through the pandemic I had decided that I am going to work from home as much as I like from now on. And if this company doesn't let me, I'll switch jobs.

Earlier in this year, the CEO set a "back to the office" date of June 13th. I've been in occasionally since then and it's still basically a ghost town. So apparently most of my co-workers have the same idea as me.

Post reply on HN