271–280 of 351 posts
They say it's 100% of the full-time salary, but the one open position they have is a full-stack JS engineer for the equivalent of about $66k USD. Is the market really that bad in the UK? That's not even a good new grad offer in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is it still requires mental load to switch in and out of that conversation. You also create inequality on the team since threads rewards the fastest to reply. This is a lot easier to manage on a Zoom call.
> still requires mental load to switch in and out of that conversation In my experience, sitting through a boring meeting while trying to appear engaged is way more mentally draining. > You also create inequality on the team Actually, I see the opposite, that video conferencing favors the most extroverted.
I’ve noticed that the way Teams “collapses” threads that often the last to reply is the only one read besides the opening post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company does max 30 minute meetings. It's great and somehow everything still gets discussed. Occasionally we run a bit long but everyone knows you can only rely on people to be there for the first 30 minutes. I'm in a Staff role with my fingers in multiple projects across several teams, and I still only have 2-3 hours of meetings a day.
>only have 2-3 hours of meetings a day. Only?? It's surprising you tolerate even that much.
They say it's 100% of the full-time salary, but the one open position they have is a full-stack JS engineer for the equivalent of about $66k USD. Is the market really that bad in the UK? That's not even a good new grad offer in the US.
Almost every company outside the US pays at most half of what the US offers for similar positions. Only a few unicorns and a few countries are exceptions to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Let's say you do need to attend a meeting. It's a 1 hour meeting. You're needed in the meeting. Go in and say you only have 20 mins. Every time I've tried this or seen it tried the meeting gets rescheduled and everyone's time is wasted. I wish it worked this way.
It also heavily favors the loud and self important who will force their way to the front and dominate the conversation. In an hour long meeting there is much more opportunity to give everyone several minutes to speak and have group discussion and deliberation. Now if your meeting can actually get done in 20 minutes, it probably should have been a phone call.
I've been working 4 day workweeks for well over a decade now, took the pay cut myself. As for the goal to maintain 100% productivity whilst cutting back on hours, I'm confident that they will succeed. In fact, they'll succeed in this without requiring some kind of brilliant plan, as this recalibration happens automatically. When you start working one day less, nobody will reduce your workload by 20%. You'll have the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying it's right or the most effective option, but I believe it would be trivial to justify: it's easier to organise something in a group if everyone's available at the same time. I'm the only person in the team working 4 day week and even that was a bit awkward in planning. (still totally worth it)
> it's easier to organise something in a group if everyone's available at the same time I think most workgroups have effectively been paying extremely high overhead in social costs just so the organization could have the option to organize easily. The problem then is that meetings are called flippantly. If it's hard to get everyone in a room, you'll do a better job capitalizing on when it happens. The downside is the…
These people are unconsciously aware that they are incompetent. They pull people into meetings in order to have a sense of having done work, at the cost of total productivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“After your boss has taken away your door, your walls, and your storage areas, there aren't many options left for the next revolution in office design. One of the following things is likely to go next: the floor; the ceiling; your happiness." Scott Adams was blasting open concept offices before it was cool to blast them.
Hot-take, it was never NOT cool to blast open offices. Unless you're in middle management.
All of the sysadmins worked from one room, with a "datacenter" in the room next door. Imagine a single room, with desks lined up around the walls. No cubicles, and barely enough room for a keyboard/mouse/monitor and room for a soda or coffee. Crappy chairs too. Since I was the FNG, I got the desk in the back corner underneath the A/C duct. So I was perpetually frozen.
No one looks at each other since our desks faced the walls. The walls between our room and the "datacenter" had no soundproofing, so whenever I spun up the Sun gear (T2 cpus) the noise was like a helicopter taking off. Even over the A/C blasting down on me, I would hear these servers when I did a reboot.
I think the average salary at the time was around $70K or so, and there were 9 of us crammed into that crappy little room. So roughly $1M in compensation, but they couldn't find a real spot for us to work. Screw that place...
Wonder if school will ever switch to four days a week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I joined an east coast computer company in the mid-80s, ties all the time were already gone for a lot of engineering positions (though more senior engineers and managers still tended to wear them). Suits were pretty standard for marketing for marketing and other business roles. Around the time you say, casual Fridays came in. The funny thing is the CEO got annoyed at one point because a lot of the engineers felt…
A company in my town still requires suit and tie for men, dresses or long skirts for women. If you leave your chair, you need to put your suit jacket on. You can take it off when sitting. The amount of money it would take for me to put up with such ancient, sexist and conformist bullshit is hard to imagine.