But they did read your post, as shown by their provided reasoning. Your follow-up seems to have disregarded their entire response, resorting to ad hominems rat

But they did read your post, as shown by their provided reasoning. Your follow-up seems to have disregarded their entire response, resorting to ad hominems rather than providing any justification of why you disagree. From my perspective, your response is an example of the exact opposite of what was written, that being "bountiful blind arrogance". For what it's worth, I largely agreed with their assessment that a top performer in a remote setting is highly-likely to be a top-performer in-office as well. The set containing top-performing engineers that are effective in-office is a subset of top-performing engineers that are effective remotely. While there are certainly exceptions to this, the article seems to support this assessment when it enumerates the list of things that new-hires would need to learn for both in-office and remote scenarios: > As you can see, junior remote employees are doing almost 2x the upskilling they're doing in the office. It's not their fault they are struggling to get up to speed as quickly.