3 ms·
Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interes
by fhd2 3y ago
Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences. My advice would be to try and work with people that are on the same page about this with you - if possible. If everybody can muster the level of acceptance and respect for their colleagues required to make a hybrid environment work, that'd also do the trick.
What I find fascinating about the remote vs on-site flame war are the _stakes_ though, I don't think we see anything like it in dynamic vs static typing and all the others.
If remote loses, remote workers have to figure out how to relocate their entire families to a place they don't really want to live in, or accept severely limited job opportunities - on top of having to work in an environment they might not be productive or happy in.
If on-site loses, people who are fetching large salaries and bought a house in an area with insane real estate prices face a future where their house value shoots lower than the credit they took to buy it (more towards the national average), and where it's increasingly difficult for them to prove that they earn that large salary they're getting. That's on top of working in an environment they might not be productive or happy in.
Both sides have a lot to lose if it all goes either one way or another, that's unlike any other flame war I can think of. I wonder how much of this is at play at Google. Certainly seems to be escalating if someone feels the need to pull a stunt like that (with the performance reviews).
- iainmerrick 3y agoNobody ever actually wins a flame war, though, right?
- sublimefire 3y agoemacs won, didn't it :D
- Keyframe 3y agoBy admitting defeat with evil mode.
- fhd2 3y agoReminds me of Kobayashi Maru (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru)
- kimburgess 3y agoVim still has a substantial user base that won't/can't quit.
- sebzim4500 3y agoDoesn't vim have way more users these days? I haven't used it myself, but I know a lot of people who do and every IDE has vim bindings whereas I don't think I've seen emacs bindings.
- Stranger43 3y agoNormally internet only flame wars like the vim/emacs ones break out because they are fun so in that case everyone does.
- nhagr 3y agoI agree with respect to real programmers. For the politicians and influencers, however, on-site work is vital (especially if they are good looking or charismatic). They need meetings to shine optically and verbally and dominate the real workers. This parasitical category of people usually has the most influence, so the move to return to on-site work is not surprising.
- fhd2 3y agoI know what you mean, but this kind of negative spin probably doesn't help the situation :D Some people are better at creating (real or fake) value face to face. I've seen what you describe in remote/distributed setting as well, in internal message boards for example. Some folks are shy and/or incoherent in person and master manipulators in writing.
- syndacks 3y agoI’m a good looking and charismatic programmer, one who understands we evolved as a species solving problems with other humanoids on the planes, and it makes perfect sense to me that a hybrid work situation is the optimal way for most teams to solve problems most of the time. I’m sorry you feel dominated, consider developing the non programmer side of your spirit.
- jkukul 3y ago> Quick search on this thread didn't reveal the word "flame" (as in "flame war"), so I can´t resist: That's what the remote vs on-site debate is. About as interesting and ultimately inconclusive as Emacs vs Vi. Neither is universally better. It depends, _primarily_ on the people involved and their preferences You nailed it. Ideally, both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite or remotely, based on their preferences (again, this is subjective and not scientific). I believe the market could self-regulate in such a way. For instance, if the demand for remote work exceeds the supply, a savvy employer with a fit for remote work could take advantage of it by attracting better/more/cheaper talent through offering remote positions. However, what needs to be debated and critizised is when employers change the rules midway through a game. It's unfair to hire people for a "remote role" and then force them to work in the office. This creates real-world hardships for individuals, such as the need to relocate. Using your analogy, it would be like initially giving your future employees the choice between Emacs and Vim, but later giving Vim users extra points in performance reviews.
- cbarrick 3y ago> Using your analogy, it would be like initially giving your future employees the choice between Emacs and Vim, but later giving Vim users extra points in performance reviews. That analogy doesn't quite apply to this Google situation. Google has a distinction between "full remote" and "hybrid" employees. Attendance will NOT be considered in the performance reviews of full remote employees.
- rhtgrg 3y agoDid you miss the part of the email where remote employees near offices are "strongly encouraged" to switch to hybrid?
- hbn 3y ago> both employees and employers should have the freedom to choose whether to work onsite or remotely, based on their preferences Not that I'm antsy to get back to the office, but that scenario is not an "everyone wins" scenario, it's just another version of remote work. Onsite is only onsite if everyone is onsite. If it's some people in the office and some people at home, the people in the office are just working remotely from the office. All your meetings will be virtual, you don't get the benefits of onsite like being able to gauge someone's availability by just looking at them, you're gonna be screen sharing instead of just pulling up a chair next to someone, etc etc etc.
- masto 3y agoYour analysis is spot-on. Almost all of the other comments here are "I want X, so X is better. If you prefer Y, you're wrong and stupid."