I am so tired of this article. As far as HN goes, this is the new bi-weekly 'should I work at a startup?' post. As far as the general blogosphere (that's still

I am so tired of this article. As far as HN goes, this is the new bi-weekly 'should I work at a startup?' post. As far as the general blogosphere (that's still a thing, yes?) goes, it's the latest click attractor. We all know by now why open-plan offices dominate. Cost. We don't need to belabor the point. This specific article is particularly annoying: > The reasoning behind the idea of an open office is simple and makes sense in theory: fewer physical barriers – more communication and collaboration. The author knows damn well that isn't the case. The way he presents this false statement is annoying af. It's not setup as a false assumption to be torn down (which he proceeds to do), it's setup as an actually true statement. It's insulting to the reader because, nobody is so misinformed at this point in the game. He then goes on to speak from a position of authority on the history of the open office plan, which of course he gets wrong. Wilkinson didn't create an open office for Google, he created glass-walled cubes.