211–220 of 366 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody ever actually wins a flame war, though, right?
emacs won, didn't it :D
Earlier quoted context omitted.
emacs won, didn't it :D
By admitting defeat with evil mode.
After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…
In my experience(i have worked from branch offices most my career) the differentiating factor is literacy, ie how comfortable/confident are the organization with recorded text vs private spoken word and the more the organization writes the more effective the remote staff will be.
And one of the side effect of a written culture is that a lot of the informal conventions/conversations become formal structure so the same level of top down planning can look very differently based on weather the culture for disseminating it is literate or oral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can she not afford to live in SF on ~$300k a year?
Because it's not rational to pay $4000+ rent for 1 bed apartment regardless of how much you're paid; especially when that job has no reason to require a physical commute to a shared office space.
Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences. My advice would be to try and work with people that are on the same page about this with you - if possible. If…
I agree with respect to real programmers. For the politicians and influencers, however, on-site work is vital (especially if they are good looking or charismatic). They need meetings to shine optically and verbally and dominate the real workers. This parasitical category of people usually has the most influence, so the move to return to on-site work is not surprising.
Some people are better at creating (real or fake) value face to face. I've seen what you describe in remote/distributed setting as well, in internal message boards for example. Some folks are shy and/or incoherent in person and master manipulators in writing.
After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…
I'm curious how often anyone actually finds this situation to happen and improve the feedback loop. I feel like it's more of an illusion of productivity then actual productivity because it's a pile of constant interruptions.
Like the given example with Meta doesn't seem like it would be better in-person, it sounds broken regardless.
Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences. My advice would be to try and work with people that are on the same page about this with you - if possible. If…
I agree with respect to real programmers. For the politicians and influencers, however, on-site work is vital (especially if they are good looking or charismatic). They need meetings to shine optically and verbally and dominate the real workers. This parasitical category of people usually has the most influence, so the move to return to on-site work is not surprising.
After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…
There are more conditions that pertain Remote Work is better if 1. You do not have home problems that you will end up focusing on when you are there - so if you are single and do not own your home, or you have a great relationship and you do own your home but there are no problems the remote work is probably better. But just like being in an office and going into a private room can help productivity if you have probl…
Remote Work is better if
1. You prefer remote work
This always gets to be such a dogmatic discussion that will to someone claiming anyone who likes working in an office has no social life.
It’s just a preference. Remote work is not overall objectively better than office work (but you can create a set of goals for which this is true). Office work is not the right choice (but you can create a set of goals for which this is true).
Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences. My advice would be to try and work with people that are on the same page about this with you - if possible. If…
You nailed it. Ideally, both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite or remotely, based on their preferences (again, this is subjective and not scientific). I believe the market could self-regulate in such a way. For instance, if the demand for remote work exceeds the supply, a savvy employer with a fit for remote work could take advantage of it by attracting better/more/cheaper talent through offering remote positions.
However, what needs to be debated and critizised is when employers change the rules midway through a game. It's unfair to hire people for a "remote role" and then force them to work in the office. This creates real-world hardships for individuals, such as the need to relocate.
Using your analogy, it would be like initially giving your future employees the choice between Emacs and Vim, but later giving Vim users extra points in performance reviews.
After going back and forth between in-person and remote jobs, my conclusion: * Remote work is much better if you know what you're building and "just" need to execute. * In-person is much better if you don't know what you need to build, are trying to "figure it out as you go along", and are relying on the implicit fast feedback loop of standing next to each other. Obvious, right? But I think what I've realize is the d…
There are more conditions that pertain Remote Work is better if 1. You do not have home problems that you will end up focusing on when you are there - so if you are single and do not own your home, or you have a great relationship and you do own your home but there are no problems the remote work is probably better. But just like being in an office and going into a private room can help productivity if you have probl…
Not sure why this needs to be repeatedly brought up.. I mean it is called "home office" for a reason. If you don't have a real one, remote can suffer.. no surprise.