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

Remote Only

remoteonly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 374 posts

Re: Remote Only

#141

Post by mattnewport »

jv22222 wrote: post #134
hartator wrote: post #6

> Disadvantages > Scares investors - Scares some partners - Scares some customers - Scares some potential employees, mostly senior non-technical hires - Onboarding is harder, first month feels lonely We do a full remote policy at SerpApi.com, however I found this disadvantages list a bit dishonest, they are more way numerous and important, the most obvious are missing real human contacts (and it doesn't get easier wi…

> missing real human contacts For me, personally, working from home has amplified the good parts of working with people and human contact and removed the bad parts. When we do meet in person (4-5 times a year) we have a blast. When we communicate via video the communication is a lot of fun and very purposeful at the same time. Sometimes it feels like I speak to remote co-workers by video more than family and people i…

Yeah, "missing real human contacts" doesn't reflect my experience with remote work either. I'd characterize it as giving me much more control over my real human contact: I get to spend time with who I want on my own schedule to a much greater degree than I could in office jobs. Day to day that's mostly people who have nothing to do with my current work: girlfriend, friends, family, people at my krav maga classes, etc. and as a (sociable) introvert I don't burn through so much of my "social energy" just having to be around people in an office all day.

Re: Remote Only

#142

Post by megaman22 »

I've loved it, in the past when circumstances dictated it; I would love to make it the normal mode. I get so much more done.

I think the optimal distribution in one day in office, allocated to organizational work and planning and meetings, and four off-site to actually do the work.

Being "in the office" is mostly a waste of time for deep work that actually produces results.

The only thing being in the office I've found is better is feather-smoothing, and honestly, that actually works better async, if you have people that can work async.

Re: Remote Only

#143

Post by itaysk »

Observation: This almost completely conflicts with the agile manifesto.

Opinion: As an architect I feel that f2f whiteboard and brainstorming sessions are invaluable. But for a dev working on a feature, it might be better to seclude. This is just an example to say that we will never find a policy that works for everyone company-wide and world-wide. The company should do it's best to accommodate it's employees' work style, for them to be productive and happy. As for remote, I think it should be embraced, not enforced.

Re: Remote Only

#144

Post by EugeneOZ »

hartator wrote: post #6

> Disadvantages > Scares investors - Scares some partners - Scares some customers - Scares some potential employees, mostly senior non-technical hires - Onboarding is harder, first month feels lonely We do a full remote policy at SerpApi.com, however I found this disadvantages list a bit dishonest, they are more way numerous and important, the most obvious are missing real human contacts (and it doesn't get easier wi…

I really hate "real human contacts", when absolutely everybody can interrupt you, when you need to listen somebody's else "interesting" stories just because saying "stop trash talking" is not polite.

Re: Remote Only

#145

Post by megaman22 »

itaysk wrote: post #143

Observation: This almost completely conflicts with the agile manifesto. Opinion: As an architect I feel that f2f whiteboard and brainstorming sessions are invaluable. But for a dev working on a feature, it might be better to seclude. This is just an example to say that we will never find a policy that works for everyone company-wide and world-wide. The company should do it's best to accommodate it's employees' work s…

The best thing is a mix.

When you're figuring out if an idea will even work, you need time to dick around with it and try things to see if it is even possible.

Once you know the possibilities, talking it over in person and drawing pictures helps disseminate knowledge and iron out rough spots.

Then you go finish the work.

One of those needs and benefits from collaboration, the others, it actively hinders

Re: Remote Only

#146

Post by ryan-allen »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #108
ludston wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His is a moralistic argument. I expect he understands the mechanism at play here.

This is correct. Simplified, the counter argument appears to be: "If a company has the leverage in any capacity to exercise its dominance over a potential employee—to extract as much value from them at the lowest possible financial liability—it should in any case attempt to do so. It would be absurd to do otherwise." Personally, I can't abide by that—especially when the only basis is locale—and no matter if they brin…

That's pretty much a company's MO no matter where you go. It's always about leverage and market forces. If an employer could pay you 75% less to do the same work they'd do it in a heartbeat.

It's better to know the rules of the game otherwise you'll just end up being played.

Re: Remote Only

#147

Post by jasonkester »

sushisource wrote: post #28
allday wrote: post #18

> Save on compensation due to hiring in lower cost regions Pay people what they're worth regardless of where they live. If you have a developer in Nigeria or Ukraine or Vietnam that is as equally capable as a developer in the Bay Area, they should be paid the same. Doing otherwise, at best, perpetuates Western hegemony, and at worst is simply racism.

This is a bit ridiculous. It's not hegemony or racism. It's how markets work. People in those markets have fewer opportunities for highly paid employment. As a result, employers have more leverage in negotiations. It's as simple as that.

It's how markets work.

Markets work by paying for value created. I’ve tested extensively, and found that I’m equally capable of writing code on a beach in Thailand as in a felt cube in California.

I’ll grant that there is a Cost of Living difference between those places, but I would prefer that difference to be captured by me rather than somebody else’s company. It’s me doing the work and creating the value, so that seems reasonable. If you want to purchase my services, you get to pay my market rate. End of story.

Never drop your rate when working remote. That should probably be written in the article we’re discussing.

Re: Remote Only

#148

Post by mfonda »

bmelton wrote: post #91
warcher wrote: post #11

Yo, you gotta tell me when you’re working. You must. You’re on a team that is depending on you and somebody has to know where the fuck your are and when you’re going to fix whatever is broken today. “Where’s will?” “I don’t know, our manifesto says nobody gets to know when he’s working.” “Well he broke the site.” “That’s his right as a sovereign citizen.” The end.

If Kevin broke the site, it's a process problem. Kevin didn't break the site, he introduced code that might have broken the site, and the lack of tests to have detected the it broke the site. Jane then peer reviewed the code that might have broken the site and approved it. Bob then failed to notice that the site was broken during QA. The QA environment was apparently configured differently enough by Taylor that the s…

As true as this is, unexpected problems happen. Kevin may be the only one that can fix it, or at least be able to fix it a lot more effectively than others. The issue might not be Kevin's fault (i.e it's really a process problem), but being able to talk to him immediately (or at least know his schedule) will go a long ways in getting the issue resolved in an acceptable time frame.

Nothing against remote work, but knowing everyone's typical working hours makes things run a lot more smoothly.

Re: Remote Only

#149

Post by mmt »

buvanshak wrote: post #131
varenc wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve found face to face communication effective for resolving contentious disagreements and, as the parent said, difficult conclusions. I’ve seen things get a bit out of hand over email that then get resolved quite efficiently after a face to face. Live video chat is a good alternative, but I think more natural human empthay comes out in face to face experiences. People seem to understand the other side’s perspective…

>I’ve found face to face communication effective for resolving contentious disagreements... I have observed the same. But 9 out of 10 times, it was because the losing party couldn't spend much time thinking about counter arguments. So again, it cures the symptom, but it benefits only the person with the loudest voice in the room, and not the one with sound reason. >People seem to understand the other side’s perspecti…

> So again, it cures the symptom, but it benefits only the person with the loudest voice in the room, and not the one with sound reason.

..or even just the facts. I have, on (fortunately rare) occasions, refused to heed a manager's encouragement to speak with someone directly, because my disagreement isn't even about reasoning, but about facts.

It can be remarkably frustrating to have to repeat the same thing to someone who believes in something that is demonstrably false. At least over e-mail one can copy-and-paste.

It's as if (some) people can't tell the difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion (or judgment).

It may be true that face-to-face is best at resolving contentious disagreements on matters of opinion. However, I'd think it could only be true if those disagreements are based on everyone reaching their opinions from the same facts, and even determining if that's the case could easily be short-circuited by a premature opinion (e.g. loudest voice in the room).

Re: Remote Only

#150

Post by a13n »

> Working long hours or weekends is not encouraged nor celebrated.

What does this have to do with building a remote-only company?

Different companies have different cultures, and that's okay. Would Uber be nearly as successful if they were fully remote? Maybe. Would Uber be nearly as successful without a long hours culture? I'm highly skeptical.

Post reply on HN