4 ms·

The irony is that all the companies and startups work on internet companies which could happen anywhere with internet access. It's not like there is a gold min

The irony is that all the companies and startups work on internet companies which could happen anywhere with internet access. It's not like there is a gold mine under San Francisco streets that requires on site mining. And before you say "the people are the gold mine", those people could be interacted with remotely quite easily.

sreyaNotfilc 8y ago
I saw 'San Francisco' and rolled my eyes. This is the dumbest idea I have seen in a while. What if someone runs you over trying to back into a spot? What if something falls from the sky (besides rain)? Or someone runs off with your equipment because your weren't looking? Or even, its a busy day and someone didn't reserve a parking spot. Putting your workers at risk because you're trying to save some dough is highly irresponsible.
- Luc 8y ago
  Woosh!
- nkrisc 8y ago
  Read the article. The primary point is activism. This isn't about money or saving costs at all. In fact the only mention of price was to pay the hourly parking rate, there's no mention of anyone collecting or making any other money on it. There's no formal system here, just some inspired activism to make a point about how much space is devoted to parking.
  - sreyaNotfilc 8y ago
    I believe that my stance still stands. Say a lot of people join the bandwagon and become activists in this manner. Or even that, say someone is thinking that this is actually a great idea and starts buying up Parkmobile spots to. Sitting in a parking lot, no matter what the cause or circumstance is, is a recipe for disaster. Its still a highly unsafe thing to do.
    - nkrisc 8y ago
      > Its still a highly unsafe thing to do. You are correct. However sometimes activists choose to risk their personal well-being to bring attention to issues or to make their point. I wouldn't worry about this becoming a normal thing. The concerns you raise are about the practicality of this stunt. However the practicality of it is irrelevant to the purpose and not the point.
SubuSS 8y ago
I don't understand the push for remote work. I have been a part of remote teams for over 11 years of my career (16 yrs). I have worked from home more days than I can count. It has enough drawbacks that I'd avoid it at any given opportunity. Here are a few reasons: - You are not part of the hallway conversations / decision changes / fly by meetings / face-memory / kitchen run ins and every other benefit of having people together. When your level is senior enough, these are very much a deciding factor in whether your last 6 months of work is going to be thrown out or kept relevant. - Video conferencing is terrible. If you notice a pattern, the conversation is DOMINATED by the side with most power. I have seen very senior engineers (including myself I suppose) have trouble corralling a meeting / participating in a discussion that's going back and forth animatedly when there are other senior folk in one room. When you are junior, there is a high possibility your chances to speak are just perfunctory because almost all relevant points have been made already. - Yes I have heard and tried the notions of ensuring meeting etiquette. I have also been part of these meetings where there is someone (or everyone) trying to police how the meeting is run (let everyone speak, juniors go first, go in a circle ...). Those have been considerably less productive to put it mildly. (Remember - I am the one who is remote). - There are always mic-hogs who don't make a ton of points - most of the efficient places weed these out real quick. In a different rant - I hate optimizing for the bad actors that penalize the good actors heavily. Anyway - in this case you are left with few folks with real talking points not being able to convey the whole nuance. - Essentially this leads to you doing extra work in ensuring at least some folks on the other side are on the same page before the meeting to ensure your points are considered. So yes - in short remote is bad IMO. Video conferencing pretty much doesn't work since it doesn't capture the full presence and energy of folks. This is going to sound metaphysical, but my real presence is a million times better representation of the full me than my text/video :). It may work when everyone is remote with an individual screen - the usual situations I am in is where there are 2 or 3 conference rooms with people.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Any team that spans several locations is going to have some/all of those issues anyway. Why make people suffer though living in a particular place on top of that?
- 8y ago
wDcBKgt66V8WDs 8y ago
If you're a techie, young with no family, and you want good culture, good climate, good outdoors, and good job prospects...the valley is hard to beat. Yes I know about droughts, we can debate all day if the culture is good or terrible, all these tech people are ruining the parks, yadayadayada. Point still stands, the san fran area has a unique and sought after position. And to address your point about gold mine of people, not every company does the whole remote thing. I mean I agree remote shouldn't be hard but it's a legitimate position to prefer onsite employees.
- s3r3nity 8y ago
  > yadayadayada You claim all of these to be unique characteristics, then wave off all reasonable (and in some cases, strong) arguments to the contrary that the Valley is hard to beat. If it’s “hard to beat” because of X, Y, Z, and there are many other places with better examples of X, Y, and Z qualities, then there’s little about the position that should make SF “unique” or “sought after.” Climate + outdoors + good job prospects are pretty much everywhere. In fact, you might be able to enjoy them more in other spots because of better commutes (less driving and/or better public transit,) better living conditions, and more purchasing power (lower prices on everything + lower rents / housing prices.) But I guess the views are nice...?

sreyaNotfilc 8y ago

I saw 'San Francisco' and rolled my eyes. This is the dumbest idea I have seen in a while. What if someone runs you over trying to back into a spot? What if something falls from the sky (besides rain)? Or someone runs off with your equipment because your weren't looking? Or even, its a busy day and someone didn't reserve a parking spot. Putting your workers at risk because you're trying to save some dough is highly irresponsible.

Luc 8y ago
Woosh!
nkrisc 8y ago
Read the article. The primary point is activism. This isn't about money or saving costs at all. In fact the only mention of price was to pay the hourly parking rate, there's no mention of anyone collecting or making any other money on it. There's no formal system here, just some inspired activism to make a point about how much space is devoted to parking.
- sreyaNotfilc 8y ago
  I believe that my stance still stands. Say a lot of people join the bandwagon and become activists in this manner. Or even that, say someone is thinking that this is actually a great idea and starts buying up Parkmobile spots to. Sitting in a parking lot, no matter what the cause or circumstance is, is a recipe for disaster. Its still a highly unsafe thing to do.
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    > Its still a highly unsafe thing to do. You are correct. However sometimes activists choose to risk their personal well-being to bring attention to issues or to make their point. I wouldn't worry about this becoming a normal thing. The concerns you raise are about the practicality of this stunt. However the practicality of it is irrelevant to the purpose and not the point.

SubuSS 8y ago

I don't understand the push for remote work. I have been a part of remote teams for over 11 years of my career (16 yrs). I have worked from home more days than I can count. It has enough drawbacks that I'd avoid it at any given opportunity. Here are a few reasons: - You are not part of the hallway conversations / decision changes / fly by meetings / face-memory / kitchen run ins and every other benefit of having people together. When your level is senior enough, these are very much a deciding factor in whether your last 6 months of work is going to be thrown out or kept relevant. - Video conferencing is terrible. If you notice a pattern, the conversation is DOMINATED by the side with most power. I have seen very senior engineers (including myself I suppose) have trouble corralling a meeting / participating in a discussion that's going back and forth animatedly when there are other senior folk in one room. When you are junior, there is a high possibility your chances to speak are just perfunctory because almost all relevant points have been made already. - Yes I have heard and tried the notions of ensuring meeting etiquette. I have also been part of these meetings where there is someone (or everyone) trying to police how the meeting is run (let everyone speak, juniors go first, go in a circle ...). Those have been considerably less productive to put it mildly. (Remember - I am the one who is remote). - There are always mic-hogs who don't make a ton of points - most of the efficient places weed these out real quick. In a different rant - I hate optimizing for the bad actors that penalize the good actors heavily. Anyway - in this case you are left with few folks with real talking points not being able to convey the whole nuance. - Essentially this leads to you doing extra work in ensuring at least some folks on the other side are on the same page before the meeting to ensure your points are considered. So yes - in short remote is bad IMO. Video conferencing pretty much doesn't work since it doesn't capture the full presence and energy of folks. This is going to sound metaphysical, but my real presence is a million times better representation of the full me than my text/video :). It may work when everyone is remote with an individual screen - the usual situations I am in is where there are 2 or 3 conference rooms with people.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Any team that spans several locations is going to have some/all of those issues anyway. Why make people suffer though living in a particular place on top of that?
8y ago

wDcBKgt66V8WDs 8y ago

If you're a techie, young with no family, and you want good culture, good climate, good outdoors, and good job prospects...the valley is hard to beat. Yes I know about droughts, we can debate all day if the culture is good or terrible, all these tech people are ruining the parks, yadayadayada. Point still stands, the san fran area has a unique and sought after position. And to address your point about gold mine of people, not every company does the whole remote thing. I mean I agree remote shouldn't be hard but it's a legitimate position to prefer onsite employees.

s3r3nity 8y ago
> yadayadayada You claim all of these to be unique characteristics, then wave off all reasonable (and in some cases, strong) arguments to the contrary that the Valley is hard to beat. If it’s “hard to beat” because of X, Y, Z, and there are many other places with better examples of X, Y, and Z qualities, then there’s little about the position that should make SF “unique” or “sought after.” Climate + outdoors + good job prospects are pretty much everywhere. In fact, you might be able to enjoy them more in other spots because of better commutes (less driving and/or better public transit,) better living conditions, and more purchasing power (lower prices on everything + lower rents / housing prices.) But I guess the views are nice...?