14 ms·

Look, you can't have it both ways. People on HN are always talking badly about companies that don't allow work from home, or require at least a couple days in t

by geuis 4y ago

Look, you can't have it both ways. People on HN are always talking badly about companies that don't allow work from home, or require at least a couple days in the office. Then a company says it's going entirely remote (not including the layoff context) and people shit on that. Which is it? As for the layoffs, I don't have anything to add to that. There a Microsoft decision.

giardini 4y ago
Well, you can have it both (or even more) ways: no matter what companies do, someone will crap on them! This can be universal (all companies) or particular (e.g., the company that overbilled me). And that's w/o going into politics )(if you do, leftists will jump up and crap on capitalism). Welcome to the crapnet.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Look, you can’t have it both ways. “You” can, especially when “you” are a diverse group of different people, not a single entity. But this isn’t even a “both ways” situation. > People on HN are always talking badly about companies that don’t allow work from home, or require at least a couple days in the office. Then a company says it’s going entirely remote (not including the layoff context) and people shit on that. You can, in fact, with perfect consistency criticize people for not allowing something while also criticizing other people for forcing that same thing and not allowing the opposite.
JoshCole 4y ago
You claimed: we must have it one way or the other. This is false. Game theory says you are wrong and has proofs that you are wrong in the form of proofs of mixed strategies being optimal equilibrium strategies. In these strategies we have the assumption of having it both ways - the probabilities have to add one, but they don't have to be binary. Lets use a much simpler decision problem to show that you are wrong to not think of things as happening in both ways. Consider rock paper scissors. If I want to pick rock, because I'm worried about them picking paper, it doesn't mean I can't be wary of scissors, because I'm worried about them picking rock. For, were I to not be wary of them picking scissors, they could always pick scissors, and therefore, because I had it only one way, I would be exploitable. So now I have to be wary of them picking scissors, but what if I am only wary that they pick scissors? Then I will now play rock. Yet now they can play paper. So what if am I only wary they play paper? Then I must play scissors. Yet if I do, they play rock. So what if I am only wary they play rock? Then I must play paper. Yet now if I do, they can play scissors. So actually, it isn't that you can't have it both ways, but that you must have it all ways. Anything else and you can't reason properly about the expectations. > People on HN are always talking badly about companies that don't allow work from home This is also false. People on Hacker News are not always doing this, they are sometimes doing this, and then sometimes doing other things. There are also many people on Hacker News and each commenter may have a different opinion. Some people on Hacker News prefer working from home. Some people on Hacker News do not prefer working from home. I feel that you are trying too hard to set up a 'it has to be one way' dichotomy to make your decision problems simpler, but it isn't actually true that making your problems simpler and easier to reason about means that you are doing more correct reasoning. Demanding that others simplify their thinking in a similar way is a request, not for correct thinking, but for use of a time savings technique that you prefer. Being very clear on that will probably make it more obvious to you that what you are requesting is not as necessary as you seem to think it is: for he calculated his expectation with regard to how exploitable this could make us, then gave you that expectation. This cost you almost nothing to incorporate into your own estimates, so on the whole, it saved you time, at the cost of his time, a cost which you are not paying, but which you benefit from in expectation through correction of the estimates of your faster to calculate yet more exploitable false dichotomy.
brundolf 4y ago
There are different people on this website and they can have different opinions about things
- mlyle 4y ago
  And we can even have somewhat contradictory opinions about things. E.g. the option for remote work is really nice for many and may be required to be viable in the future... but are we losing some fundamental part of teamwork by leaving the office? And does it really just make us more expendable?
  - johnnyanmac 4y ago
    >but are we losing some fundamental part of teamwork by leaving the office? In some ways yes. It is much harder to brainstorm through conference calls for example. >And does it really just make us more expendable? technically yes. It's very easy to be "forgotten" in a remote setting if your job is isolated out. They won't even have a face to place on someone when it comes to re-orgs.
  - onlypositive 4y ago
    [dead]
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"but are we losing some fundamental part of teamwork by leaving the office? And does it really just make us more expendable?" I do not believe I am special in any way but I am remote since 2000 and while working with the clients I often work with teams. At no point I felt like I am loosing some "fundamental part". Maybe because work team is work team and nothing more. I do not consider work as a source of friends even though I have acquired couple this way. Mostly I have friends outside of work.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  That's right. The HN Community isn't. HN isn't a coherent whole with one voice. And, as a sibling comment pointed out, neither, typically, is any individual contributor. We can even change our opinions.
ryanisnan 4y ago
Not to mention being remote and caring for employees are not mutually exclusive factors.
lozenge 4y ago
It's almost as if... employees want choice even within their company?
baridbelmedar 4y ago
This site is a bit: "4 Polacks, 6 opinions" -Frank Sobotka
hikawaii 4y ago
The hackernews zeitgeist assumes all companies are run by saturday morning cartoon villains, despite being in an industry that is highly privileged at the expense of other possible businesses due to economic policy.
- MonkeyClub 4y ago
  Have to admit, I read this: > assumes all companies are run by saturday morning cartoon villains Then took a moment to do a quick mental check, recall faces and dress codes and behaviours, and I could hardly disagree, they are run by cartoon villains! Both ex bosses of mine and pop CEOs fit the bill to such a degree that it's scary.
Nullabillity 4y ago
The layoffs are relevant context for how people are going to interpret the policy change though.
JasserInicide 4y ago
I'll contend that while I've been fully taken advantage of remote work (and probably want my next job to be remote too), I still fully believe it's a long term "leading lambs to the slaughter" type of plan. Companies save big on remote in so many ways. No more offices. No more weekly happy hours (just do a company retreat every 6 months). They can now depress salaries even further because they have a wider pool from which to choose. Don't need to bother with those pesky things called relationships because your boss from 500 miles away can lay off your ass without breaking a sweat. It's short term benefits for all, but ultimately the workers will lose out.
- bart_spoon 4y ago
  > No more offices. No more weekly happy hours. Those sound like benefits to many. > They can now depress salaries even further because they have a wider pool from which to choose. This is only a negative for people who were already making absurdly high incomes in HCOL areas. For many people away from the coasts, salaries are now higher because they have access to the kinds of jobs and companies they didn’t before. > Don't need to bother with those pesky things called relationships because your boss from 500 miles away can lay off your ass without breaking a sweat. Has this every not been the case? Besides, there are only two kinds of layoffs. Massive ones that do not take performance into account, and rarely take input from your direct manager about who is going and who is staying. On the other hand, for layoffs in which performance is taken into account, I’m sure many prefer the criteria to be more about their work than how chummy they are with the boss and how well they politick. I can see how these might be disadvantages for a certain kind of worker, but for other kinds they are huge wins.
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  If that’s the case then why hasn’t the shift happened sooner?
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Previous big waves of the shift were referred to as "outsourcing", "offshoring", etc.
gorjusborg 4y ago
There are a bunch of different people reacting to a stressful change in economy and its effects on the job market. That's all. It may be 'easier' to fire people when you don't have to deal with their physical presence, but I doubt that factors much into the decision overall. My bet is that companies are battening down the hatches because they see strong headwinds economically (or are using other layoffs as an excuse to clean house). Good companies will retain good talent. They won't jettison their valued contributors just to have their competition scoop them up. The emphasis here is on Good. Bad companies likely will jettison many of their good employees, either by setting bad policies and having them opt out, or by firing them direction because they aren't paying attention. Remote work is one of those factors that some companies are struggling to set policies for. Unfortunately, there are many 'bad' companies, and many people on HN work for them.
- rnk 4y ago
  Some companies laying off, the common issue is the appearance of over-hiring like facebook. I know two small companies that are hiring, so what can you conclude? Nothing in general. I think it's mostly just following the herd.
- silvestrov 4y ago
  It's difficult for a company to work well when 50% are in office and 50% are remote. If you can't get enough good employees in office, then it is smarter to go 100% remote as you now have an easier time hiring and working globally.
  - rswail 4y ago
    Different types of workers need different levels of face-to-face interaction. Marketing teams, creatives and other similar groups need more face-to-face interaction because what they're creating is all about interaction, with the company's customers, their consumers (if not B2C), etc. Those building the product after the marketing and other designers have created their designs don't require as much F2F time. They need whiteboards and C4 diagrams (in IT at least) when architecting systems, as well as some team F2F for thrashing out system level functionality and how it will be implemented (shared services etc). But an individual developer, writing code, doesn't need F2F time with anyone. They need the capability to be available (video calls, text chat etc), but it's not an inherent requirement.
serf 4y ago
>Which is it? I think it's fair to say that people would like to work remotely while also not being converted into a commoditized faceless resource; and I think that it's clear to anyone at the moment that we haven't quite worked all the kinks out of total remote work , yet. An ideal remote environment would be one where the human at the other end of the line is still remembered as being a human and cherished rather than just treated as a gig worker-drone.
- guhidalg 4y ago
  That's never going to happen. Most people (maybe not you, you savant) need someone's physical presence to see them as a real person. The phrase "Out of sight, out of mind" did not become irrelevant just because I can email someone across the world.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    > Most people (maybe not you, you savant) need someone's physical presence to see them as a real person. In that case, I’ll just assume you’re a bot and simply parroting what you’ve been programmed to say.
  - null_object 4y ago
    [dead]
  - mvanbaak 4y ago
    Try having video calls.
    - guhidalg 4y ago
      I do, every day. I still don't have an emotional attachment to the people I'm video calling from across the world. The folks nearby? Yes.
  - 4y ago
aidenn0 4y ago
I know. It's almost like HN isn't a monolith and people reach for the "comment" button more often when they are critical than supportive.
thinkharderbro 4y ago
why can't it be both ways? neither of those things is absolutes. you can have shitty companies that want to treat employees like temporary resources and may use remote work to streamline the facilitation of that. you can also have companies that treat employees well and don't see the need to force them into the office unnecessarily. both can happen. we don't have to think about things singularly.
jawerty 4y ago
This person does not represent HN. They can have their opinion.
bagels 4y ago
HN is not one person. Different people can have different opinions on this matter.
bawolff 4y ago
Its almost as if all decisions have pros and cons, and there is no magic one viewpoint that captures all the consequences of such an action.
palata 4y ago
You can have a fix desk for employees who want to be on site, and have a bunch of "free desks" for the remote ones who want to come to the office. Sometimes it's nice to be remote, sometimes it's nice to be in the office. Some people like it 100% remote, other 100% on site.
kgwxd 4y ago
It's not a contradiction to say I want to work remotely and I don't want the company to use it against me. A company can choose to go remote for good and bad reasons. If they do it for bad reasons, they get shit on. In the context of layoffs, it's not irrational to consider the motive might be bad.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rising-sky 4y ago
> Which is it? Is the expectation here that "people on HN" are a monolith and only capable of singular thought? Are you suggesting there can't or shouldn't be any room for diversity of thought and debate?
maxerickson 4y ago
People shit on companies for talking one way and acting another. It's simple.
zeroonetwothree 4y ago
Perhaps it's not the same people...
BluSyn 4y ago
Probably in minority here; I currently work remote, but miss going to the office. Will consider non-remote roles in the future.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  I've found "At your own discretion" jobs are great. The downside is they can be hard for a company to justify unless the space is being used for other means than just "the occasional office space". I'm "100% remote" but can head in to our main office (just under 2 hours away) any time and if it's a multi-day engagement there is a hotel across the street. Far enough away that I never feel like I have to come in for anything but close enough that if something is better done in person/a fun event I can go there without coordinating flights and a rental or driving all day. My last job had a similar structure but the office was ~15 minutes away so it was harder to push back on some "well let's just all work on this here together for the next 3 weeks since we're local" type asks and didn't work out as well. I don't mind collaborating but after years of not being used to coming in every day coming in is honestly not much better to me than the idea of "my job requires me to fly out for weeks at a time" type travel (which I've also done before).
littlecosmic 4y ago
I think thats it is two separate groups piping up with two different opinions on remote work.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
denkmoon 4y ago
Perhaps "is a company a good employer" is a multi-dimensional thing.
nonethewiser 4y ago
There are different people on hackernews though.
firecall 4y ago
HN isn't one person. It's a community of individuals having a debate. But I get your point! :-) It does seem that way...
ozim 4y ago
You know that crowds can have multiple different opinions that are conflicting at the same time. Wait for it… even single person can hold 2 or more conflicting opinions or views at the same time. Fun part is they also can and will use them in discussions as they see fit. There is no law or logic involved.
carlmr 4y ago
I think comments like yours are interesting. You say people on HN shit on both, pretending you caught the hive-mind in some kind of hypocrisy. I'd bet there are more than two people here that can hold more than two opinions. Why would you expect everyone to be of the same opinion? And the two extremes don't even cover the whole spectrum of opinions you can have. I personally like working in the office, I believe humans are social animals that need more than just interaction through voice and crappy video with a bad angle, yet I hate the commute. So I'm completely fine with the hybrid approach we have right now at my company. Although I would understand if for cost-savings they'd make us 100% remote. Working from home where I'm mostly independent is great, I can concentrate much better. Working from home on something that needs collaboration is hard. Meetings in Teams are psychologically exhausting. You can't see the reactions of people when you present something. This feedback is necessary. Maybe if we had some kind of VR/metaverse kind of thing it would help, but it would need to convey facial micro-expressions in real-time. Audio would need to be placed appropriately in the room. Like for VR meetings to make sense it shouldn't be necessary to mute your microphone. The app would need to make it sound like you're in a room together and multiple people can be distinguished properly by ear.

by geuis 4y ago

giardini 4y ago

Well, you can have it both (or even more) ways: no matter what companies do, someone will crap on them! This can be universal (all companies) or particular (e.g., the company that overbilled me). And that's w/o going into politics )(if you do, leftists will jump up and crap on capitalism). Welcome to the crapnet.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Look, you can’t have it both ways. “You” can, especially when “you” are a diverse group of different people, not a single entity. But this isn’t even a “both ways” situation. > People on HN are always talking badly about companies that don’t allow work from home, or require at least a couple days in the office. Then a company says it’s going entirely remote (not including the layoff context) and people shit on that. You can, in fact, with perfect consistency criticize people for not allowing something while also criticizing other people for forcing that same thing and not allowing the opposite.

JoshCole 4y ago

You claimed: we must have it one way or the other. This is false. Game theory says you are wrong and has proofs that you are wrong in the form of proofs of mixed strategies being optimal equilibrium strategies. In these strategies we have the assumption of having it both ways - the probabilities have to add one, but they don't have to be binary. Lets use a much simpler decision problem to show that you are wrong to not think of things as happening in both ways. Consider rock paper scissors. If I want to pick rock, because I'm worried about them picking paper, it doesn't mean I can't be wary of scissors, because I'm worried about them picking rock. For, were I to not be wary of them picking scissors, they could always pick scissors, and therefore, because I had it only one way, I would be exploitable. So now I have to be wary of them picking scissors, but what if I am only wary that they pick scissors? Then I will now play rock. Yet now they can play paper. So what if am I only wary they play paper? Then I must play scissors. Yet if I do, they play rock. So what if I am only wary they play rock? Then I must play paper. Yet now if I do, they can play scissors. So actually, it isn't that you can't have it both ways, but that you must have it all ways. Anything else and you can't reason properly about the expectations. > People on HN are always talking badly about companies that don't allow work from home This is also false. People on Hacker News are not always doing this, they are sometimes doing this, and then sometimes doing other things. There are also many people on Hacker News and each commenter may have a different opinion. Some people on Hacker News prefer working from home. Some people on Hacker News do not prefer working from home. I feel that you are trying too hard to set up a 'it has to be one way' dichotomy to make your decision problems simpler, but it isn't actually true that making your problems simpler and easier to reason about means that you are doing more correct reasoning. Demanding that others simplify their thinking in a similar way is a request, not for correct thinking, but for use of a time savings technique that you prefer. Being very clear on that will probably make it more obvious to you that what you are requesting is not as necessary as you seem to think it is: for he calculated his expectation with regard to how exploitable this could make us, then gave you that expectation. This cost you almost nothing to incorporate into your own estimates, so on the whole, it saved you time, at the cost of his time, a cost which you are not paying, but which you benefit from in expectation through correction of the estimates of your faster to calculate yet more exploitable false dichotomy.

brundolf 4y ago

There are different people on this website and they can have different opinions about things

mlyle 4y ago
And we can even have somewhat contradictory opinions about things. E.g. the option for remote work is really nice for many and may be required to be viable in the future... but are we losing some fundamental part of teamwork by leaving the office? And does it really just make us more expendable?
- johnnyanmac 4y ago
  >but are we losing some fundamental part of teamwork by leaving the office? In some ways yes. It is much harder to brainstorm through conference calls for example. >And does it really just make us more expendable? technically yes. It's very easy to be "forgotten" in a remote setting if your job is isolated out. They won't even have a face to place on someone when it comes to re-orgs.
- onlypositive 4y ago
  [dead]
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"but are we losing some fundamental part of teamwork by leaving the office? And does it really just make us more expendable?" I do not believe I am special in any way but I am remote since 2000 and while working with the clients I often work with teams. At no point I felt like I am loosing some "fundamental part". Maybe because work team is work team and nothing more. I do not consider work as a source of friends even though I have acquired couple this way. Mostly I have friends outside of work.
TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
That's right. The HN Community isn't. HN isn't a coherent whole with one voice. And, as a sibling comment pointed out, neither, typically, is any individual contributor. We can even change our opinions.

ryanisnan 4y ago

Not to mention being remote and caring for employees are not mutually exclusive factors.

lozenge 4y ago

It's almost as if... employees want choice even within their company?

baridbelmedar 4y ago

This site is a bit: "4 Polacks, 6 opinions" -Frank Sobotka

hikawaii 4y ago

The hackernews zeitgeist assumes all companies are run by saturday morning cartoon villains, despite being in an industry that is highly privileged at the expense of other possible businesses due to economic policy.

MonkeyClub 4y ago
Have to admit, I read this: > assumes all companies are run by saturday morning cartoon villains Then took a moment to do a quick mental check, recall faces and dress codes and behaviours, and I could hardly disagree, they are run by cartoon villains! Both ex bosses of mine and pop CEOs fit the bill to such a degree that it's scary.

Nullabillity 4y ago

The layoffs are relevant context for how people are going to interpret the policy change though.

JasserInicide 4y ago

I'll contend that while I've been fully taken advantage of remote work (and probably want my next job to be remote too), I still fully believe it's a long term "leading lambs to the slaughter" type of plan. Companies save big on remote in so many ways. No more offices. No more weekly happy hours (just do a company retreat every 6 months). They can now depress salaries even further because they have a wider pool from which to choose. Don't need to bother with those pesky things called relationships because your boss from 500 miles away can lay off your ass without breaking a sweat. It's short term benefits for all, but ultimately the workers will lose out.

bart_spoon 4y ago
> No more offices. No more weekly happy hours. Those sound like benefits to many. > They can now depress salaries even further because they have a wider pool from which to choose. This is only a negative for people who were already making absurdly high incomes in HCOL areas. For many people away from the coasts, salaries are now higher because they have access to the kinds of jobs and companies they didn’t before. > Don't need to bother with those pesky things called relationships because your boss from 500 miles away can lay off your ass without breaking a sweat. Has this every not been the case? Besides, there are only two kinds of layoffs. Massive ones that do not take performance into account, and rarely take input from your direct manager about who is going and who is staying. On the other hand, for layoffs in which performance is taken into account, I’m sure many prefer the criteria to be more about their work than how chummy they are with the boss and how well they politick. I can see how these might be disadvantages for a certain kind of worker, but for other kinds they are huge wins.
ricardobeat 4y ago
If that’s the case then why hasn’t the shift happened sooner?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Previous big waves of the shift were referred to as "outsourcing", "offshoring", etc.

gorjusborg 4y ago

There are a bunch of different people reacting to a stressful change in economy and its effects on the job market. That's all. It may be 'easier' to fire people when you don't have to deal with their physical presence, but I doubt that factors much into the decision overall. My bet is that companies are battening down the hatches because they see strong headwinds economically (or are using other layoffs as an excuse to clean house). Good companies will retain good talent. They won't jettison their valued contributors just to have their competition scoop them up. The emphasis here is on Good. Bad companies likely will jettison many of their good employees, either by setting bad policies and having them opt out, or by firing them direction because they aren't paying attention. Remote work is one of those factors that some companies are struggling to set policies for. Unfortunately, there are many 'bad' companies, and many people on HN work for them.

rnk 4y ago
Some companies laying off, the common issue is the appearance of over-hiring like facebook. I know two small companies that are hiring, so what can you conclude? Nothing in general. I think it's mostly just following the herd.
silvestrov 4y ago
It's difficult for a company to work well when 50% are in office and 50% are remote. If you can't get enough good employees in office, then it is smarter to go 100% remote as you now have an easier time hiring and working globally.
- rswail 4y ago
  Different types of workers need different levels of face-to-face interaction. Marketing teams, creatives and other similar groups need more face-to-face interaction because what they're creating is all about interaction, with the company's customers, their consumers (if not B2C), etc. Those building the product after the marketing and other designers have created their designs don't require as much F2F time. They need whiteboards and C4 diagrams (in IT at least) when architecting systems, as well as some team F2F for thrashing out system level functionality and how it will be implemented (shared services etc). But an individual developer, writing code, doesn't need F2F time with anyone. They need the capability to be available (video calls, text chat etc), but it's not an inherent requirement.

serf 4y ago

>Which is it? I think it's fair to say that people would like to work remotely while also not being converted into a commoditized faceless resource; and I think that it's clear to anyone at the moment that we haven't quite worked all the kinks out of total remote work , yet. An ideal remote environment would be one where the human at the other end of the line is still remembered as being a human and cherished rather than just treated as a gig worker-drone.

guhidalg 4y ago
That's never going to happen. Most people (maybe not you, you savant) need someone's physical presence to see them as a real person. The phrase "Out of sight, out of mind" did not become irrelevant just because I can email someone across the world.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- the_only_law 4y ago
  > Most people (maybe not you, you savant) need someone's physical presence to see them as a real person. In that case, I’ll just assume you’re a bot and simply parroting what you’ve been programmed to say.
- null_object 4y ago
  [dead]
- mvanbaak 4y ago
  Try having video calls.
  - guhidalg 4y ago
    I do, every day. I still don't have an emotional attachment to the people I'm video calling from across the world. The folks nearby? Yes.
- 4y ago

aidenn0 4y ago

I know. It's almost like HN isn't a monolith and people reach for the "comment" button more often when they are critical than supportive.

thinkharderbro 4y ago

why can't it be both ways? neither of those things is absolutes. you can have shitty companies that want to treat employees like temporary resources and may use remote work to streamline the facilitation of that. you can also have companies that treat employees well and don't see the need to force them into the office unnecessarily. both can happen. we don't have to think about things singularly.

jawerty 4y ago

This person does not represent HN. They can have their opinion.

bagels 4y ago

HN is not one person. Different people can have different opinions on this matter.

bawolff 4y ago

Its almost as if all decisions have pros and cons, and there is no magic one viewpoint that captures all the consequences of such an action.

palata 4y ago

You can have a fix desk for employees who want to be on site, and have a bunch of "free desks" for the remote ones who want to come to the office. Sometimes it's nice to be remote, sometimes it's nice to be in the office. Some people like it 100% remote, other 100% on site.

kgwxd 4y ago

It's not a contradiction to say I want to work remotely and I don't want the company to use it against me. A company can choose to go remote for good and bad reasons. If they do it for bad reasons, they get shit on. In the context of layoffs, it's not irrational to consider the motive might be bad.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rising-sky 4y ago

> Which is it? Is the expectation here that "people on HN" are a monolith and only capable of singular thought? Are you suggesting there can't or shouldn't be any room for diversity of thought and debate?

maxerickson 4y ago

People shit on companies for talking one way and acting another. It's simple.

zeroonetwothree 4y ago

Perhaps it's not the same people...

BluSyn 4y ago

Probably in minority here; I currently work remote, but miss going to the office. Will consider non-remote roles in the future.

zamadatix 4y ago
I've found "At your own discretion" jobs are great. The downside is they can be hard for a company to justify unless the space is being used for other means than just "the occasional office space". I'm "100% remote" but can head in to our main office (just under 2 hours away) any time and if it's a multi-day engagement there is a hotel across the street. Far enough away that I never feel like I have to come in for anything but close enough that if something is better done in person/a fun event I can go there without coordinating flights and a rental or driving all day. My last job had a similar structure but the office was ~15 minutes away so it was harder to push back on some "well let's just all work on this here together for the next 3 weeks since we're local" type asks and didn't work out as well. I don't mind collaborating but after years of not being used to coming in every day coming in is honestly not much better to me than the idea of "my job requires me to fly out for weeks at a time" type travel (which I've also done before).

littlecosmic 4y ago

I think thats it is two separate groups piping up with two different opinions on remote work.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

denkmoon 4y ago

Perhaps "is a company a good employer" is a multi-dimensional thing.

nonethewiser 4y ago

There are different people on hackernews though.

firecall 4y ago

HN isn't one person. It's a community of individuals having a debate. But I get your point! :-) It does seem that way...

ozim 4y ago

You know that crowds can have multiple different opinions that are conflicting at the same time. Wait for it… even single person can hold 2 or more conflicting opinions or views at the same time. Fun part is they also can and will use them in discussions as they see fit. There is no law or logic involved.

carlmr 4y ago

I think comments like yours are interesting. You say people on HN shit on both, pretending you caught the hive-mind in some kind of hypocrisy. I'd bet there are more than two people here that can hold more than two opinions. Why would you expect everyone to be of the same opinion? And the two extremes don't even cover the whole spectrum of opinions you can have. I personally like working in the office, I believe humans are social animals that need more than just interaction through voice and crappy video with a bad angle, yet I hate the commute. So I'm completely fine with the hybrid approach we have right now at my company. Although I would understand if for cost-savings they'd make us 100% remote. Working from home where I'm mostly independent is great, I can concentrate much better. Working from home on something that needs collaboration is hard. Meetings in Teams are psychologically exhausting. You can't see the reactions of people when you present something. This feedback is necessary. Maybe if we had some kind of VR/metaverse kind of thing it would help, but it would need to convey facial micro-expressions in real-time. Audio would need to be placed appropriately in the room. Like for VR meetings to make sense it shouldn't be necessary to mute your microphone. The app would need to make it sound like you're in a room together and multiple people can be distinguished properly by ear.