10 ms·

> Eliminating 2 hours a day of driving and train rides left me with more energy I can expend on my work! Companies forget this. I have had coworkers quit becau

> Eliminating 2 hours a day of driving and train rides left me with more energy I can expend on my work! Companies forget this. I have had coworkers quit because they couldn't deal with transport. One got stressed out of his mind because our office was close to motorway which frequently has accidents and if that happened he might not be able to pick up the kids on time. Others had to leave clients hanging because they had to leave, "daycare closes at 16:30 and it's now 16:00". Working from home it was much more frequent that clients in the late afternoon would get "Sure, give me ten minutes to pick up the kids and we'll finish this today".

camillomiller 2y ago
Ok, so why is that. I can't seem to find any reasonable explanation as to why they forget it. Especially considering that data absolutely does not seem on the side of RTO. What's your theory?
- advael 2y ago
  I think the most compelling explanation is that control over workers is more important than productivity to the leadership of many of these companies Perhaps especially in the case of larger companies, sunk costs on office space may be a factor
  - graemep 2y ago
    The latter means you are positing management incompetent enough that they do not understand that sunk costs should be ignored? I am not saying you are wrong, BTW. Even worse, in many cases the costs are not entirely sunk. You might be able to get out of a lease with a penalty, if you own the buildings you can sell them. In either case its cheaper to keep a building unused than to run it as an office.
    - advael 2y ago
      In fact I used the key phrase "sunk cost" directly to imply that, since that's entered the lexicon as a common reasoning error While business leaders want to think of and portray themselves as these hyper-rational actors whose every choice is either made from ingenuity or total necessity, this is obviously false and I think the prestige and optics of office spaces heavily play into the priorities of managers, especially as compared to people who do any other kind of work
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      > you are positing management incompetent enough... Those people are world-class politicians or born super-rich. When you put a selection filter that exclusive in a population, you force every other attribute extremely close to the median. And the median of competence on any field is much smaller than the mean.
    - gosub100 2y ago
      >if you own the buildings This opens a new avenue I'd never considered: that some of the RTO pressure is perhaps due to keeping real estate prices up. Maybe there is somehow pressure from commercial landlords towards the tenants to keep the building occupied, or as you stated places that own the building don't want it to be devalued by appearing (or actually being) abandoned for years.
- malermeister 2y ago
  I think there's a few factors at play: 1) Ego/Power trip reasons: It just makes you feel like the big man to be physically lording over your minions and they miss it. 2) Class Warfare: Workers need to be kept miserable enough so they turn to mindless consumption and don't start asking any inconvenient questions. 3) Financial Conflicts of Interest: Higher Management is likely to have some real estate investments, maybe even in commercial real estate. They might be worried more about that part of their portfolio than about the company stock part.
- jasode 2y ago
  >I can't seem to find any reasonable explanation as to why they forget it. The companies already know all about the positive time savings from not sitting in traffic commuting. But they believe that benefit is negated by employees getting less work done at home. My previous comment about employees "saving time" by working from home isn't seen that way by companies mandating RTO : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34929902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34929902
  - swiftcoder 2y ago
    And yet all the studies suggest that remote workers tend to work longer hours (presumably guilt over those commute time savings cause them to get rolled into working hours), and can find at best marginal declines in productivity...
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      Nah, if you give people more free hours in a day, they will be less conscious of how they spend those.
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    One colleague, years back, got somewhat famous by negotiating that work would pay for his commute one way. His argument was: "I don't stop thinking about work just because I leave the office and I frequently solve issues on my way home and that's not free". For some regions, where salaries don't match housing cost, I don't think it's unfair to ask your employer to pay half of your commute. Either you pay a salary that allows relocation, or you pay at least some of the commute time. Again it's not as if work stops just because you leave the office, if you're a developer at least.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  Because they measure the wrong things or is completely driven by sentiment. Sort of similar, a friend of mine was fired. Ostensibly for not bringing in enough revenue/profit in a consulting business. Very few of his hours where billable, so he looked unprofitable. The issue: He was working on internal tooling, building systems that everyone else rely on to do their jobs effectively. His value was hidden in the work of others, but that's not measured. When looking a "work from home", you rarely see companies measure job satisfaction, stress levels or even do proper exit interviews. The sort of things you need to keep on top of the keep people long term. Many customers won't report back to your boss that because you sat a your desk at home you where able to help them after your normal working hours, saving time the next day. In consulting tracking billable hours is normal, but if you don't track when and where those hours are worked, you're not going to see that some work better at the office, while others have a skyrocketing productivity boost at home. Other times you have bosses that wants "butts in seat" because they don't trust their employees. Hell, we had a sister company where the employees sat in a fucking horseshoe configuration at the office, on the "inside" of the horseshoe, so the owner could sit at the open end at check that people where working at all times. Do you think that fucker is going to let people work from home?
  - riskable 2y ago
    I knew someone that didn't trust their employees (small business). In the past they ran a different small business where their own employees would steal from them (not money; inventory) and this lead this person into a life-long distrust of people in general. The problem though is their new small business employed mostly office-type workers yet they still had that hourly/retail employee mindset. Treated their employees very poorly and had high turnover as a result. Then COVID happened and suddenly everything got better for everyone. He was forced to trust his employees working from home and they loved it. He, of course, was high anxiety all the time worried that his employees were slacking off. I asked him, "are they not getting all the work done?" and he was very adamant that was completely irrelevant. From his perspective, if an employee was doing anything other than "work" while on-the-clock they were stealing from him. It was a pretty clear message. As soon as COVID was over he forced everyone to come back into the office... And shortly thereafter he had to sell his business because he couldn't find anyone to work for him anymore. No idea what he's doing now but I still see people with his attitude everywhere (in varying degrees from mild to extreme). On the plus side that guy would never ever bother his employees after work hours. Which is quite a step above employers that treat their employees as always-available serfs.
- lazide 2y ago
  Not the parent poster, but companies want people who will deal and cater to their needs, not people who will whine and complain about (even very real) issues. And employees will typically want companies that will cater to their every whim and pay them very well to be catered too. Where the two meet is the labor market. Conditions are changing, and ‘hard’ force is being applied again.
  - riskable 2y ago
    The employee demands are usually simpler: They want their employer to pay the most and inconvenience them as little as possible. "cater to their every whim" is nonsense. Nobody expects that. Employees know what the job will entail 99% of the time because it's their career focus. For that reason they don't really need much from their employer other than the tools necessary to do their jobs (e.g. a computer).
    - lazide 2y ago
      ‘Cater to their every whim’ - have you not seen FAANG benefits and benefit culture? If you think employees in tech have just been asking for computers and money - for well over a decade and a half - then you’re living in a completely different industry than I have been.
kwanbix 2y ago
I know this might be an "unpopular opinion," but after working fully remote for three years, I found myself feeling really down. I felt like a prisoner in my own home. So, three months ago, I started a new job with an office that’s 45 minutes away, and I’ve been going in every day—and I couldn't be happier! I do have the option to work from home all days if I want, but honestly, I prefer going to the office. Now, I get to see people, move around more, and when I’m at home, it truly feels different from being at work. It’s been a game-changer for me.
- alliao 2y ago
  do you have family?
  - longnt80 2y ago
    most likely they don't have
- martinohansen 2y ago
  One does not exclude the other. I work for a remote-only company but use a workspace almost every day. I get to chose my own “office” and the people in it, I also pick the commute I want, this one is just 5 minutes away.
- ktzar 2y ago
  I think you have touch on an interesting point here... When working remotely you really need to put an effort into keeping a healthy social life balance, otherwise you end up feeling exactly as you describe. It's easy for days to go on with no "change of landscape", and that can send anyone straight to depression.
  - brightball 2y ago
    Yea, I’ve been working remote for 12 years and that was the first thing I had to solve. There’s a local tech Slack in my area that I keep up and I have a text group that I’ve built up over the years that sometimes grabs lunch or hits the gym. Keeps me balanced.
jmyeet 2y ago
> Companies forget this. No, they don't. It's intentional. Someone quitting over an RTO mandate is cheaper than a layoff. And if someone doesn't quit, they're likely to put up with a whole lot of other grief too. Unpaid extra work (to cover the people who quit), not asking for raises, etc. It's purely money-saving and to instill fear. In the 20th century, IBM and the Welch era brought in a lot of tools to extract the most from employees like the "up or out" mentality or simply firing the bottom 5-10% of employees every year. Tech has simply reached that point. You are a replaceable cog. Tech is now in permanent layoffs culture to suppress wages. Laying off 5% of the workforce every year is now a permanent fixture of your company. Personally, I think engaging in layoffs means you, as an employer, have demonstrated there is insufficient need and you are ineligible to sponsor a work visa in any broadly related area for 24 months. "Broadly related" here means if you layoff a software engineer, you can't sponsor another software engineer. I don't care if one does C++ and the other does Python. I guess you'll have to train somebody.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  > Someone quitting over an RTO mandate is cheaper than a layoff. That might be a thing, but I can only speak from personal experience, and I'm an area of the world where there's still a pretty big shortage of IT workers, so it doesn't make sense to drive them away.
  - jmyeet 2y ago
    In hiring threads there's disconnect people have because the employer's goals and the potential employee's goals are different. Candidates often think the employer wants the best employee so will bemoan things like whiteboard coding because some people don't do well in that situation. They're correct about that but wrong about the employer's goals. The employer is simply filling a role. They're looking for someone sufficient. They don't need to be perfect in this process. It's the same here. You are replaceable. Never forget that. You may be thinking the company is losing a good employee. And they might be. But it doesn't matter because keeping particular employees is almost the goal. There are very few people who are truly irreplaceable. If out of 20 employees, one quits over the RTO mandate then their work gets spread around the other 19 who now do 5% more work for less money because they're not asking for raises and there's no severance to pay. It's win-win-win. The company would rather understaff and underpay to any other outcome.
michaelcampbell 2y ago
> Companies forget this. More that they assume (or demand) the worker is going to pay this cost on their behalf.
pavel_lishin 2y ago
When my employer tried to make us come back to the office, I flat out told them - school dropoff is at 8:30, the next train is at 8:50, so the earliest I can be in the office is 10, if every train arrival is precisely synchronized, which it never is. And since pick-up is at 4:30, it means I have to leave the office at 3:00 at the absolute latest, lest I incur significant monetary penalties - as well as the ire of the people who care for my child - for late pick-up. So sure, if you want me in the office for five hours a day - one of which is going to be taken up by going to lunch with my coworkers, since face-time is so important - I'll be there. Unless there are significant delays, which there usually are, in which case I'll be there for maybe four hours a day, because I'll also have to leave early since delays in the morning frequently mean delays in the evening.
- ncruces 2y ago
  The people who care for your child should themselves tell their employer, in ire, that the earliest they can be at the office is 10, and that they have to leave by 3 at the absolute latest, since they have train commutes themselves.
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    The people who care for my child cannot do their jobs remotely; I can.
    - ncruces 2y ago
      Then maybe don't use their plight to boast about how tough your are. Or to complain about the significant monetary penalties you'd have to pay, when it's surely easier to pay those on your salary than theirs.
      - pavel_lishin 2y ago
        Am I allowed to complain about anything, so long as someone else has it worse off than me?
varelse 2y ago
[dead]
tbomb 2y ago
> Companies forget this. they don't care about your commute at all. "if [c-level exec] can make it to the office every day, so can you" not to mention that, said exec does not in fact make it to the office every day
mihaaly 2y ago
Also 2 x 60m commuting + 15-45m (depending on circumstances) of preparation for the office before leaving. So much waste of one's life! I was steering myself towards remote work since it was technically unfeasible. I worked from home in the late 90's setting up a removable hard drive with data and two computers taking that (office + home), but that WFH was beyond the 40h / week, I had to go in 9 to 5 still. I liked the tasks, so it was exciting. Then technology improved, chose a position where the pay was only acceptable but I had the chance of working from different places, city, country, so no chance of going in to the office! This was the 2010's. Then chose an on-site work in a rich country so after getting to know and trust each other I'd have the theoretical possibility of working from a cheap country remotely on a very good salary (or something between the two for mutual benefit). Unluckily I had a stoneheaded and actually very incompetent COO coming from decades of secretarial position in a uni unable to comprehend working elsewhere than in an allocated (rubbish) chair at a particular (rubbish) desk in a cheap office (being cold in winter so my poor female colleagues sat in coats) far from amenities, from 9 to 5. This was her sole understanding what work is, the poor soul. So after some time trying (suffering, fighting) for remote dominant settings I handed in my resignation (they headed a wall anyway with that poor incompetent COO) into the nothing. Having some months of rest before picking up something new. That was 2019 December. Oi! : ) Now I work with colleagues - working on the very same codebase - from 3 continents spanning 18h of time zones, most of them never met. This is nice!

camillomiller 2y ago

Ok, so why is that. I can't seem to find any reasonable explanation as to why they forget it. Especially considering that data absolutely does not seem on the side of RTO. What's your theory?

advael 2y ago
I think the most compelling explanation is that control over workers is more important than productivity to the leadership of many of these companies Perhaps especially in the case of larger companies, sunk costs on office space may be a factor
- graemep 2y ago
  The latter means you are positing management incompetent enough that they do not understand that sunk costs should be ignored? I am not saying you are wrong, BTW. Even worse, in many cases the costs are not entirely sunk. You might be able to get out of a lease with a penalty, if you own the buildings you can sell them. In either case its cheaper to keep a building unused than to run it as an office.
  - advael 2y ago
    In fact I used the key phrase "sunk cost" directly to imply that, since that's entered the lexicon as a common reasoning error While business leaders want to think of and portray themselves as these hyper-rational actors whose every choice is either made from ingenuity or total necessity, this is obviously false and I think the prestige and optics of office spaces heavily play into the priorities of managers, especially as compared to people who do any other kind of work
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    > you are positing management incompetent enough... Those people are world-class politicians or born super-rich. When you put a selection filter that exclusive in a population, you force every other attribute extremely close to the median. And the median of competence on any field is much smaller than the mean.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    >if you own the buildings This opens a new avenue I'd never considered: that some of the RTO pressure is perhaps due to keeping real estate prices up. Maybe there is somehow pressure from commercial landlords towards the tenants to keep the building occupied, or as you stated places that own the building don't want it to be devalued by appearing (or actually being) abandoned for years.
malermeister 2y ago
I think there's a few factors at play: 1) Ego/Power trip reasons: It just makes you feel like the big man to be physically lording over your minions and they miss it. 2) Class Warfare: Workers need to be kept miserable enough so they turn to mindless consumption and don't start asking any inconvenient questions. 3) Financial Conflicts of Interest: Higher Management is likely to have some real estate investments, maybe even in commercial real estate. They might be worried more about that part of their portfolio than about the company stock part.
jasode 2y ago
>I can't seem to find any reasonable explanation as to why they forget it. The companies already know all about the positive time savings from not sitting in traffic commuting. But they believe that benefit is negated by employees getting less work done at home. My previous comment about employees "saving time" by working from home isn't seen that way by companies mandating RTO : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34929902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34929902
- swiftcoder 2y ago
  And yet all the studies suggest that remote workers tend to work longer hours (presumably guilt over those commute time savings cause them to get rolled into working hours), and can find at best marginal declines in productivity...
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Nah, if you give people more free hours in a day, they will be less conscious of how they spend those.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  One colleague, years back, got somewhat famous by negotiating that work would pay for his commute one way. His argument was: "I don't stop thinking about work just because I leave the office and I frequently solve issues on my way home and that's not free". For some regions, where salaries don't match housing cost, I don't think it's unfair to ask your employer to pay half of your commute. Either you pay a salary that allows relocation, or you pay at least some of the commute time. Again it's not as if work stops just because you leave the office, if you're a developer at least.
mrweasel 2y ago
Because they measure the wrong things or is completely driven by sentiment. Sort of similar, a friend of mine was fired. Ostensibly for not bringing in enough revenue/profit in a consulting business. Very few of his hours where billable, so he looked unprofitable. The issue: He was working on internal tooling, building systems that everyone else rely on to do their jobs effectively. His value was hidden in the work of others, but that's not measured. When looking a "work from home", you rarely see companies measure job satisfaction, stress levels or even do proper exit interviews. The sort of things you need to keep on top of the keep people long term. Many customers won't report back to your boss that because you sat a your desk at home you where able to help them after your normal working hours, saving time the next day. In consulting tracking billable hours is normal, but if you don't track when and where those hours are worked, you're not going to see that some work better at the office, while others have a skyrocketing productivity boost at home. Other times you have bosses that wants "butts in seat" because they don't trust their employees. Hell, we had a sister company where the employees sat in a fucking horseshoe configuration at the office, on the "inside" of the horseshoe, so the owner could sit at the open end at check that people where working at all times. Do you think that fucker is going to let people work from home?
- riskable 2y ago
  I knew someone that didn't trust their employees (small business). In the past they ran a different small business where their own employees would steal from them (not money; inventory) and this lead this person into a life-long distrust of people in general. The problem though is their new small business employed mostly office-type workers yet they still had that hourly/retail employee mindset. Treated their employees very poorly and had high turnover as a result. Then COVID happened and suddenly everything got better for everyone. He was forced to trust his employees working from home and they loved it. He, of course, was high anxiety all the time worried that his employees were slacking off. I asked him, "are they not getting all the work done?" and he was very adamant that was completely irrelevant. From his perspective, if an employee was doing anything other than "work" while on-the-clock they were stealing from him. It was a pretty clear message. As soon as COVID was over he forced everyone to come back into the office... And shortly thereafter he had to sell his business because he couldn't find anyone to work for him anymore. No idea what he's doing now but I still see people with his attitude everywhere (in varying degrees from mild to extreme). On the plus side that guy would never ever bother his employees after work hours. Which is quite a step above employers that treat their employees as always-available serfs.
lazide 2y ago
Not the parent poster, but companies want people who will deal and cater to their needs, not people who will whine and complain about (even very real) issues. And employees will typically want companies that will cater to their every whim and pay them very well to be catered too. Where the two meet is the labor market. Conditions are changing, and ‘hard’ force is being applied again.
- riskable 2y ago
  The employee demands are usually simpler: They want their employer to pay the most and inconvenience them as little as possible. "cater to their every whim" is nonsense. Nobody expects that. Employees know what the job will entail 99% of the time because it's their career focus. For that reason they don't really need much from their employer other than the tools necessary to do their jobs (e.g. a computer).
  - lazide 2y ago
    ‘Cater to their every whim’ - have you not seen FAANG benefits and benefit culture? If you think employees in tech have just been asking for computers and money - for well over a decade and a half - then you’re living in a completely different industry than I have been.

kwanbix 2y ago

I know this might be an "unpopular opinion," but after working fully remote for three years, I found myself feeling really down. I felt like a prisoner in my own home. So, three months ago, I started a new job with an office that’s 45 minutes away, and I’ve been going in every day—and I couldn't be happier! I do have the option to work from home all days if I want, but honestly, I prefer going to the office. Now, I get to see people, move around more, and when I’m at home, it truly feels different from being at work. It’s been a game-changer for me.

alliao 2y ago
do you have family?
- longnt80 2y ago
  most likely they don't have
martinohansen 2y ago
One does not exclude the other. I work for a remote-only company but use a workspace almost every day. I get to chose my own “office” and the people in it, I also pick the commute I want, this one is just 5 minutes away.
ktzar 2y ago
I think you have touch on an interesting point here... When working remotely you really need to put an effort into keeping a healthy social life balance, otherwise you end up feeling exactly as you describe. It's easy for days to go on with no "change of landscape", and that can send anyone straight to depression.
- brightball 2y ago
  Yea, I’ve been working remote for 12 years and that was the first thing I had to solve. There’s a local tech Slack in my area that I keep up and I have a text group that I’ve built up over the years that sometimes grabs lunch or hits the gym. Keeps me balanced.

jmyeet 2y ago

> Companies forget this. No, they don't. It's intentional. Someone quitting over an RTO mandate is cheaper than a layoff. And if someone doesn't quit, they're likely to put up with a whole lot of other grief too. Unpaid extra work (to cover the people who quit), not asking for raises, etc. It's purely money-saving and to instill fear. In the 20th century, IBM and the Welch era brought in a lot of tools to extract the most from employees like the "up or out" mentality or simply firing the bottom 5-10% of employees every year. Tech has simply reached that point. You are a replaceable cog. Tech is now in permanent layoffs culture to suppress wages. Laying off 5% of the workforce every year is now a permanent fixture of your company. Personally, I think engaging in layoffs means you, as an employer, have demonstrated there is insufficient need and you are ineligible to sponsor a work visa in any broadly related area for 24 months. "Broadly related" here means if you layoff a software engineer, you can't sponsor another software engineer. I don't care if one does C++ and the other does Python. I guess you'll have to train somebody.

mrweasel 2y ago
> Someone quitting over an RTO mandate is cheaper than a layoff. That might be a thing, but I can only speak from personal experience, and I'm an area of the world where there's still a pretty big shortage of IT workers, so it doesn't make sense to drive them away.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  In hiring threads there's disconnect people have because the employer's goals and the potential employee's goals are different. Candidates often think the employer wants the best employee so will bemoan things like whiteboard coding because some people don't do well in that situation. They're correct about that but wrong about the employer's goals. The employer is simply filling a role. They're looking for someone sufficient. They don't need to be perfect in this process. It's the same here. You are replaceable. Never forget that. You may be thinking the company is losing a good employee. And they might be. But it doesn't matter because keeping particular employees is almost the goal. There are very few people who are truly irreplaceable. If out of 20 employees, one quits over the RTO mandate then their work gets spread around the other 19 who now do 5% more work for less money because they're not asking for raises and there's no severance to pay. It's win-win-win. The company would rather understaff and underpay to any other outcome.

michaelcampbell 2y ago

> Companies forget this. More that they assume (or demand) the worker is going to pay this cost on their behalf.

pavel_lishin 2y ago

When my employer tried to make us come back to the office, I flat out told them - school dropoff is at 8:30, the next train is at 8:50, so the earliest I can be in the office is 10, if every train arrival is precisely synchronized, which it never is. And since pick-up is at 4:30, it means I have to leave the office at 3:00 at the absolute latest, lest I incur significant monetary penalties - as well as the ire of the people who care for my child - for late pick-up. So sure, if you want me in the office for five hours a day - one of which is going to be taken up by going to lunch with my coworkers, since face-time is so important - I'll be there. Unless there are significant delays, which there usually are, in which case I'll be there for maybe four hours a day, because I'll also have to leave early since delays in the morning frequently mean delays in the evening.

ncruces 2y ago
The people who care for your child should themselves tell their employer, in ire, that the earliest they can be at the office is 10, and that they have to leave by 3 at the absolute latest, since they have train commutes themselves.
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  The people who care for my child cannot do their jobs remotely; I can.
  - ncruces 2y ago
    Then maybe don't use their plight to boast about how tough your are. Or to complain about the significant monetary penalties you'd have to pay, when it's surely easier to pay those on your salary than theirs.
    - pavel_lishin 2y ago
      Am I allowed to complain about anything, so long as someone else has it worse off than me?

varelse 2y ago

[dead]

tbomb 2y ago

> Companies forget this. they don't care about your commute at all. "if [c-level exec] can make it to the office every day, so can you" not to mention that, said exec does not in fact make it to the office every day

mihaaly 2y ago

Also 2 x 60m commuting + 15-45m (depending on circumstances) of preparation for the office before leaving. So much waste of one's life! I was steering myself towards remote work since it was technically unfeasible. I worked from home in the late 90's setting up a removable hard drive with data and two computers taking that (office + home), but that WFH was beyond the 40h / week, I had to go in 9 to 5 still. I liked the tasks, so it was exciting. Then technology improved, chose a position where the pay was only acceptable but I had the chance of working from different places, city, country, so no chance of going in to the office! This was the 2010's. Then chose an on-site work in a rich country so after getting to know and trust each other I'd have the theoretical possibility of working from a cheap country remotely on a very good salary (or something between the two for mutual benefit). Unluckily I had a stoneheaded and actually very incompetent COO coming from decades of secretarial position in a uni unable to comprehend working elsewhere than in an allocated (rubbish) chair at a particular (rubbish) desk in a cheap office (being cold in winter so my poor female colleagues sat in coats) far from amenities, from 9 to 5. This was her sole understanding what work is, the poor soul. So after some time trying (suffering, fighting) for remote dominant settings I handed in my resignation (they headed a wall anyway with that poor incompetent COO) into the nothing. Having some months of rest before picking up something new. That was 2019 December. Oi! : ) Now I work with colleagues - working on the very same codebase - from 3 continents spanning 18h of time zones, most of them never met. This is nice!