81–90 of 206 posts
If my business pays for a great programmer, I want that programmer's knowledge, experience and attitude to diffuse to the rest of my team (... not that I have a business, just sayin' :-). Much harder to do this if that great programmer isn't in the office.
>Use WordPress and P2, use Slack, use G+ Hangouts, use Skype, use any of the amazing technology that allows us to collaborate as effectively online as previous generations of company did offline. I've been a 100% remote worker for 5+ years but I think we have to be honest here. All those teleconferencing/videoconferencing/virtualwhiteboards/etc are not as effective as everyone sharing the same physical workspace. Yes…
Hey Matt, I'm so glad you felt it necessary to include that DHTML snowstorm. My laptop fan really needed the exercise and I have your ~500-line JavaScript workout to thank for it! Of course, I closed the tab pretty much immediately after noticing it so I didn't read the article. Can't wait for unnecessary js to go out of style.
Sure enough.
Meh. Here is the tradeoff. If everyone is co-located, you have inconvenience and higher productivity. If everyone is remote, you have an inherent overhead, but enormous flexibility. If some people are co-located and others are remote, you naturally tend towards a divide where people who are co-located without thinking about it wind up networking with each other and excluding the remotes. If you are a small startup, t…
Programmers, if they have a choice, like remote or at least some remote. Managers + VCs, if they have a choice, prefer all in the office so they can keep power but this actually makes them less competitive and more susceptible to physical disruptions: moving an office, an employee moving, time, office politics, commute, distractions, over meeting and more. The PG essay on this was glaringly overlooking that you can b…
I'd add that the PG post is a symptom of a disease. A disease that that is brewing in the echo-chambers of SV. Note also the recent post where PG claims that "mean people fail". The more the VC community gets un-hinged from the reality the quicker the inflation of the bubble and the crazier the assertions. Time to get out of the bubble.
The article assumes its conclusion: > amazing technology that allows us to collaborate as effectively online as previous generations of company did offline That's a huge claim, and it's disputable. For example, I've worked both ways a lot and find remote work to be dramatically less effective. If you accept the claim, then sure, the startups PG was writing about are missing the obvious, and for the most ironic of rea…
>Use WordPress and P2, use Slack, use G+ Hangouts, use Skype, use any of the amazing technology that allows us to collaborate as effectively online as previous generations of company did offline. I've been a 100% remote worker for 5+ years but I think we have to be honest here. All those teleconferencing/videoconferencing/virtualwhiteboards/etc are not as effective as everyone sharing the same physical workspace. Yes…
Meh. Here is the tradeoff. If everyone is co-located, you have inconvenience and higher productivity. If everyone is remote, you have an inherent overhead, but enormous flexibility. If some people are co-located and others are remote, you naturally tend towards a divide where people who are co-located without thinking about it wind up networking with each other and excluding the remotes. If you are a small startup, t…
This is purely up to the team. Sometimes being co-located leads to over meeting and lots of time spent on disruptions and chats, while remote working lead you to be more professional and talk to your co-workers only when necessary for the job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd add that the PG post is a symptom of a disease. A disease that that is brewing in the echo-chambers of SV. Note also the recent post where PG claims that "mean people fail". The more the VC community gets un-hinged from the reality the quicker the inflation of the bubble and the crazier the assertions. Time to get out of the bubble.
Part of the problem is that investors might understand the businesses they invest in from 30,000 feet, but they frequently have no idea how their portfolio companies are actually run. If some of them went undercover and applied for jobs at their own portfolio companies, they'd probably have a different perspective about the "talent shortage."