7 ms·

> It's like you didn't even read my post, just looked for the hook to drop in and proclaim your superiority. Seemed to me it was just a counter-point to your p

> It's like you didn't even read my post, just looked for the hook to drop in and proclaim your superiority. Seemed to me it was just a counter-point to your post. If you don't have anything productive to add, that's fine, but resorting to personal attacks doesn't really make your argument/viewpoint look better. From my own personal experience, I'd mirror what the previous poster said. Most of the top performers in a remote setting (at least with software engineering) are usually also a top performer in an office setting. Does that mean there are not outliers? No.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
- l30n4da5 4y ago
  no it isn't.
  - fileeditview 4y ago
    It is a claim without proof which discredits people failing in a remote job. Comes pretty close to an insult TBH. Considering that success and failure in remote jobs does depend a lot on the team, the organization, the planning etc.. not only the person itself. Also e.g. this sentence by GP raised red flags for me: > Most software engineers produce more effort than they’re worth and skate by with meetings, “pair programming”, etc Let's leave meetings out because I agree that too many meetings are bad but pair programming can be a useful tool, especially to transfer knowledge. And that MOST SWEs produce more effort than they're worth.. lol.. what a blanket statement.
    - l30n4da5 4y ago
      > It is a claim without proof which discredits people failing in a remote job. Comes pretty close to an insult TBH. It was an opinion. Given based on someone's anecdotal experience. I'll stand by my original statement regarding whether that is a personal attack: > No it isn't. ___ > lol.. what a blanket statement. agreed on that point. I believe that statement definitely missed the mark, imo.
- bragr 4y ago
  I think you should read that post again with more dispassion. It does NOT say that top performer's are not suffering from remote work. It says who the top performers are has not really changed. The top performers could be getting 50% less work done and that person's post still holds for me.
- ospzfmbbzr 4y ago
  Not personal unless you take it that way -- instead take it as a challenge and show him he was wrong about you. Programming well is difficult and takes time and effort to get good at, but it's worth it. Being junior and learning while remote is not ideal at all. I work very well remotely but only because everything is second nature to me now after so many years. If that makes me a 'top performer' then it's only because I worked my way up to that. Do you believe you are at your top performance already? Or can you get better still?
  - travisgriggs 4y ago
    > Programming well is difficult and takes time and effort to get good at, but it's worth it. I agree very much with parts 1 and 2 of your assertion. At 51, with a decent brag list of successes, I think I’ve even achieved some measure of it. The part I’m not sure about is the “worth it.” I used to think that, I’ve become less sure of late. What makes it worth to you? I’m honestly curious. I used to have various things that made it worth it to me, and of late they’ve become less valued.
    - ospzfmbbzr 4y ago
      Yeah I'm a bit jaded too. Would I get into this business today? Probably not. Mostly because of the potential employers, who they hire and why, and how success is 'measured' these days. I've been contract only for 17 years and I'll never go back to employment. I guess I'm lucky to have the option, but if I didn't I'd find another non-employment way to earn a living. As you say the problem is that individual contributor quality isn't valued as it should be -- it's not prioritized above say compliance with 'all the current things.' Engineering culture is mostly absent everywhere nowadays and in it's place a culture of entitlement and groupthink -- the hallmarks of failing institutions.
  - mgfist 4y ago
    You're totally missing the original point. > I work very well remotely but only because everything is second nature to me now after so many years. This is coming from the narrow view that people who struggle remotely only do so because they are inexperienced. I know people who struggled because they lived in a small NYC apartment where their desk was 2 feet from their bed, and the lack of movement or change of environment was killer mentally. I know people who struggled because they are highly extroverted and not seeing people IRL led to crushing mental health issues. I know people who did not live up to their IRL potential because they thrive on watercooler chats for creativity. I know people who just felt disconnected remotely and didn't feel the purpose and connection to the team/company in person. Basically, "technical ability" is not the sole reason why someone would be worse remotely than in person. Likewise there are people who feel distracted in person and need the remote solitude or get drained from the commute.
- fromwhence 4y ago
  That is not a personal insult. It couldn't even be so by implication, unless the alleged insulter here knows something about you personally that the rest of us don't know. They simply made an assertion. You can disagree with it, but that's their general assertion and that's not the same thing as a personal insult.
- barrysteve 4y ago
  Yeah his post could be interpreted that way, especially by the open topic about "personality types" and your implication that your better jobs were in person. But I doubt he meant it that way. Some people are so used to talking in impersonal generalities it is assumed to be an impersonal statement, even in oddly personal situations.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  How is "not being a top performer" an insult? Not everyone is born/made to be a top performer at work. And that is fine, especially as it is probably the least interesting quality in a human being, especially outside of work.
  - bumby 4y ago
    My guess is this those who find it an insult are either overachievers (who have to feel like they excel at everything), or tie their personal identity to their work (and by saying they are not a top performer, the implication is have less personal worth).
- pyb 4y ago
  Agree that it was poor form of lettergram to non-sequitur your post, as an opportunity to bash their own colleagues. This kind of interaction is normally more prevalent on Twitter than it is here.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

l30n4da5 4y ago
no it isn't.
- fileeditview 4y ago
  It is a claim without proof which discredits people failing in a remote job. Comes pretty close to an insult TBH. Considering that success and failure in remote jobs does depend a lot on the team, the organization, the planning etc.. not only the person itself. Also e.g. this sentence by GP raised red flags for me: > Most software engineers produce more effort than they’re worth and skate by with meetings, “pair programming”, etc Let's leave meetings out because I agree that too many meetings are bad but pair programming can be a useful tool, especially to transfer knowledge. And that MOST SWEs produce more effort than they're worth.. lol.. what a blanket statement.
  - l30n4da5 4y ago
    > It is a claim without proof which discredits people failing in a remote job. Comes pretty close to an insult TBH. It was an opinion. Given based on someone's anecdotal experience. I'll stand by my original statement regarding whether that is a personal attack: > No it isn't. ___ > lol.. what a blanket statement. agreed on that point. I believe that statement definitely missed the mark, imo.
bragr 4y ago
I think you should read that post again with more dispassion. It does NOT say that top performer's are not suffering from remote work. It says who the top performers are has not really changed. The top performers could be getting 50% less work done and that person's post still holds for me.
ospzfmbbzr 4y ago
Not personal unless you take it that way -- instead take it as a challenge and show him he was wrong about you. Programming well is difficult and takes time and effort to get good at, but it's worth it. Being junior and learning while remote is not ideal at all. I work very well remotely but only because everything is second nature to me now after so many years. If that makes me a 'top performer' then it's only because I worked my way up to that. Do you believe you are at your top performance already? Or can you get better still?
- travisgriggs 4y ago
  > Programming well is difficult and takes time and effort to get good at, but it's worth it. I agree very much with parts 1 and 2 of your assertion. At 51, with a decent brag list of successes, I think I’ve even achieved some measure of it. The part I’m not sure about is the “worth it.” I used to think that, I’ve become less sure of late. What makes it worth to you? I’m honestly curious. I used to have various things that made it worth it to me, and of late they’ve become less valued.
  - ospzfmbbzr 4y ago
    Yeah I'm a bit jaded too. Would I get into this business today? Probably not. Mostly because of the potential employers, who they hire and why, and how success is 'measured' these days. I've been contract only for 17 years and I'll never go back to employment. I guess I'm lucky to have the option, but if I didn't I'd find another non-employment way to earn a living. As you say the problem is that individual contributor quality isn't valued as it should be -- it's not prioritized above say compliance with 'all the current things.' Engineering culture is mostly absent everywhere nowadays and in it's place a culture of entitlement and groupthink -- the hallmarks of failing institutions.
- mgfist 4y ago
  You're totally missing the original point. > I work very well remotely but only because everything is second nature to me now after so many years. This is coming from the narrow view that people who struggle remotely only do so because they are inexperienced. I know people who struggled because they lived in a small NYC apartment where their desk was 2 feet from their bed, and the lack of movement or change of environment was killer mentally. I know people who struggled because they are highly extroverted and not seeing people IRL led to crushing mental health issues. I know people who did not live up to their IRL potential because they thrive on watercooler chats for creativity. I know people who just felt disconnected remotely and didn't feel the purpose and connection to the team/company in person. Basically, "technical ability" is not the sole reason why someone would be worse remotely than in person. Likewise there are people who feel distracted in person and need the remote solitude or get drained from the commute.
fromwhence 4y ago
That is not a personal insult. It couldn't even be so by implication, unless the alleged insulter here knows something about you personally that the rest of us don't know. They simply made an assertion. You can disagree with it, but that's their general assertion and that's not the same thing as a personal insult.
barrysteve 4y ago
Yeah his post could be interpreted that way, especially by the open topic about "personality types" and your implication that your better jobs were in person. But I doubt he meant it that way. Some people are so used to talking in impersonal generalities it is assumed to be an impersonal statement, even in oddly personal situations.
prmoustache 4y ago
How is "not being a top performer" an insult? Not everyone is born/made to be a top performer at work. And that is fine, especially as it is probably the least interesting quality in a human being, especially outside of work.
- bumby 4y ago
  My guess is this those who find it an insult are either overachievers (who have to feel like they excel at everything), or tie their personal identity to their work (and by saying they are not a top performer, the implication is have less personal worth).
pyb 4y ago
Agree that it was poor form of lettergram to non-sequitur your post, as an opportunity to bash their own colleagues. This kind of interaction is normally more prevalent on Twitter than it is here.