> It's literally illegal for many to just work from outside their jurisdiction. Sadly, while your amusing pedantry is technically correct in a vacuum, it compl

> It's literally illegal for many to just work from outside their jurisdiction. Sadly, while your amusing pedantry is technically correct in a vacuum, it completely fails within the prior context given. Did you forget to the read the comments up to this point or were you aiming to give us a good laugh? > Working physically from the office while a vast number of their peers are at home does not make it work from office. Agreed. Hence the idea of venturing out into the world to meet with peers. If what you are struggling to say is that nobody wants to work with you, I guess that's life. Slavery is a thing of the past. You can't force people to do things they don't want to do. > Sitting on zoom calls all day in the office has no discernible difference than sitting at home. If you are using Zoom (or similar) all day you're not doing WFH. WFH brings very different operating semantics and doesn't just try to duplicate the office over the internet. What you describe is work from office. Location isn't the factor here. > but to underline that empathizing with the opposing point of view What points of view are you referring to? All we have is reality. Trying to ascribe emotions to attempts to understand the world is bad faith participation. Granted, this may be the result of not having read the prior comments as suggested above. But replying without having read the comments is also bad faith participation. > Turns out people like to work with people they like Seems they don't else they would work together. WFH encourages people to work together in the flesh so if it is not happening what does that tell us? That certain individuals are best avoided? I can agree with that, although I have to wonder why that was worth pointing out if that was your goal.