I barely come in to the office any more, and this has been fine for me, I know all the senior folks in my org, I have a big meaty project that I am driving that

I barely come in to the office any more, and this has been fine for me, I know all the senior folks in my org, I have a big meaty project that I am driving that has appropriate staffing, and it's largely not from the city I live in, so I don't really benefit a lot from showing up to the office anyway. But I also haven't interacted with new folks my org has hired in my city unless I have directly worked with them, which isn't really a problem for me, but I have more experience with our technology/systems/processes that new hires would benefit from, and I am not interacting with them enough to share it. Anyway, my eyes started glazing over when this post said there was no evidence, since all the big companies have done studies on the effect of the covid shock & WFH. Microsoft published theirs and found that it wasn't totally cost-less, even if primary productivity metrics were not impacted: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-effects-of-remote-work-on-collaboration-among-information-workers/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the-eff... You can argue that the evidence is being misinterpreted, that companies are trying to have their cake (increased task-specific productivity when WFH) and eat it (increased innovation) too, but to say there is no evidence is to not engage with it at all. In general, I find it unsurprising that someone from an SRE background at a relatively small company is bullish on WFH, the job is largely not innovation focused and is probably one of the parts that is least impacted by the downsides of WFH. I think we've all experienced too big a shock for things to go back to how they were before, but pretending there are no downsides is just dogma.