371–377 of 377 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because then people say, "I stopped by your office and you were not there!" It is a big campus so there is a benefit to people being able to track me down.
IM, email, calendar, mobile could help, no? If people are stopping by often, perhaps you are not so isolated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's collective bargaining through a cartel of skilled laborers. Unions. We don't need unions - we need developers who strongly refuse to work in open offices. Since there is a shortage of developers, this should suffice. The large problem is that too many developers are willing to compromise.
So you're saying that we need a category of workers to agree to refuse certain working conditions, but as a group so that individual compromisers don't undermine the action? ...but we don't need unions?
The ethical, nonviolent way to reject bad pay or working conditions is to quit, accepting that the employer might find someone else. That's not what unions do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing that that would bother me in that situation is I do not enjoy doing work on laptops. I prefer to work from a desktop where the monitor (1) reasonably sized, (2) at eye level. I also prefer a full sized mouse and keyboard, as I feel handicapped by a trackpad. Most quiet places do not have this, so I am effectively chained to my desk, where my desktop is.
At my company, we are fortunate to have quiet spaces that have dual monitors, keyboard, and mouse, for your laptop. I agree, it's a necessity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My own anecdata about coworking spaces involves a space that only allowed permanent residents, so needless to say the group of people I met had very different motivations Still, if nomadic workers are finding it easier to "guarantee that work can be done" by booking a coworking space rather than spending that cash on a bigger AirBnB/hotel room promising a desk and fast WiFi it's an indication that at least some of th…
> rather than spending that cash on a bigger AirBnB/hotel room promising a desk and fast WiFi This is a risk you can't take as a business-person in a lot of ways. There's many places in the world that are great to visit and travel to, but that simply don't have acceptable quality of residential Internet connections. For example, I was in Rabat, Morocco a few months ago and was able to work effectively because I had a…
I worked from Morocco last month, so I'd be the first to concede their internet isn't particularly good by developing world standards, but there are an awful lot of remote workers for whom a 200 dirham dongle would do the trick. Not to mention an abundance of coworking spaces in London, where domestic wifi tends to be excellent, many of which are geared mostly or exclusively to permanent residents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're saying that we need a category of workers to agree to refuse certain working conditions, but as a group so that individual compromisers don't undermine the action? ...but we don't need unions?
If we can rely on a shortage of desperate workers, we don't need to send mafia goons after them. The ethical, nonviolent way to reject bad pay or working conditions is to quit, accepting that the employer might find someone else. That's not what unions do.
Your adversary is not going to be ethical and nonviolent.
Unions resolve the prisoner's dilemma in favor of the prisoners. The game is set up like this:
In each trial, 3 players distribute $300.
A and B vote on whether E gets $100 or $150.
E can cast a tie-breaking vote.
E decides how to distribute the remainder to A and B.
| A gets | B gets | E gets |
+--------+--------+--------+-----
| $100 | $100 | $100 | A $100, B $100
| $150 | $ 0 | $150 | A $150, B $100
| $ 0 | $150 | $150 | A $100, B $150
| $ 75 | $ 75 | $150 | A $150, B $150
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Email and slack are interruptive.
> Email and slack are interruptive. Only if you "decide" to be informed immediately when an email/message comes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Email and slack are interruptive. Only if you "decide" to be informed immediately when an email/message comes.
While it works to decide to check email only 2-3 times a day, it doesn't work so well with IM. IM discussions are typically much faster and there's a big risk you miss out on giving your POV before everyone has moved on, if you only check it every now and then.
With IM you can turn it off if you need to focus, and turn it on when you are doing busy work anyway.