yeah... and it would be great if decrease in quantity would come with increase of quality. People themselves, their life conditions, human life appreciation all that stuff you know. (Cause I do not understand why would somebody want 2x of fat dolts).
Half of software you mentioned is just garbage inside. And it will never be rewritten simply because it happens to work good enough to discourage any serious investment in rewriting it.
in your analogy: who are the investors? the US not only burns the money, it has the ability to print more money. between the petrodollar and the military supremacy the only thing that can topple the US are internal factors.
Highly debatable. However, I think most citizens would consider their nations age date of acquisition of sovereignty, not from the date of the current form of government or any other standard.
Anyway, calling United States one of the oldest countries in the world is about as defensible as calling it one of the newest countries in the world. I just don't see the data for it.
There is no data for it, its definitional. The two definitions skew the perception of the answer. Perhaps you care about stability and somehow you've got a correlation between length of government standing and your perception of stability. What defines a country?
No. I do not think he's implying it is a bad thing by itself. Instead he explicitly says that those are the people who try to solve their problems at expense of others.
The expense of others is a point that works both ways. You could equally say that someone who insists on being remote because it's better for their family life is preventing/slowing down the return to office, and that's at the expense of people who prefer to be in the office.
But I wouldn't put it that way because I don't think it makes for a productive conversation - office or remote, people like what they like and they have their reasons for it.
These are not morally equivalent. The office-worker wants others to modify everyone's behaviour to support them, whereas the remote worker just wants to control their own behaviour. The remote worker is completely ambivalent to where others want to work.
- In a big team if everyone is in-office and 1 person is remote, that person certainly cares about being the only remote person. Maybe some people would be okay with it, but being the only remote person has been known to be a not-so-great working arrangement even before the pandemic. So you can't say that remote people don't care where others work.
- If enough people choose remote, they're forcing everyone else to be remote too (whether they attend the office or not) because the communication model for the whole team has to be different now. <<< This is remote people modifying everyone else's behaviour to support them.
disclaimer: I have worked from home most of my life, so I'm not against it, BUT, people like what they like and they have their reasons for it is a very immature thing to say when talking about work: work means taking full responsibility to respect a contract in return of an economic compensation.
If you signed to work in an office and don't like it, resign.
Nobody will cry over it, just know that you signed for something you did not like.
Your fault.
Also: people working from remote do that at the expenses of others too. When I am at the office to talk with my colleagues, the one person refusing to come over forces all of us (10 or so) to turn on the video conference in some meeting room, while we could have had the same chat in the garden of the bar down the office.
They do. They might be able to say that they don't care where their coworkers are (and I believe them), but when enough people are remote, their colleagues are forced into a remote working model too because the team needs to communicate in a different way now.
How people work is a mutual agreement, not something that's being done to one group by another.
Remote fans force everyone to use tools to accommodate their remoteness.
We used to have a stand-up meeting each morning at a time "when everyopne's arrived" and we used to have a whiteboard on the wall with the most current tasks. None of this can work with even one remote worker, so it's gone to scheduled Zooms, online task managers, and endless Slack messages.
In exchange, now you have proper record of everything said and done.
I love the fact that I can always go back to Slack and say “See? This is what we agreed upon”, instead of having to recall the specifics of a meeting where notes weren’t taken in detail.
I don’t find any difference in the record-keeping of remote vs. in person meetings. The record button is available to both, but the resulting video files just as unwieldy, and Zoom’s transcripts are garbage.
Nor do I see any increased willingness to hash out complex issues in writing. The moment things get even slightly complex in a thread, it’s “let’s hop on a call.”
So you like the written “proof” so you can face off your colleagues in case of disagreement? You seem to have negative feelings about your work environment. You should consider changing jobs.
No, I want processes, agreements, and ideas, documented. Slack, Zoom and other tools make this easier.
As someone who had to train many junior employees, having a record trail is the best answer to the question “why the hell did we do this in the first place?”.
Much is still being said in person or calls, because talking is much more efficient than writing, so ... no, we don't "have proper record of everything said and done."
Whether we should have that record or not is completely orthogonal to the conversation about how remote workers force (or not) the others to behave in a certain way to accommodate the remoteness of these workers.
Just read the article. That particular "source of information" is one-sided at least. I guess on Russian side that's still an overreaction but the country is at war (although they claim the opposite) so its... hmm... natural?
Apparent reason is losing hope to monetize the product. They literally do not care how popular or beloved it is. In the end it is the business and not a charity foundation.
Right, but if you have a popular product and can’t monetize it, particularly with Google’s business model of inserting ads, then you aren’t very good at business. What’s the difference between someone logging into Gmail and paying for it via ads in Gmail vs someone logging into a legacy Google Apps for your Domain email account and paying for it via ads shown exactly like Gmail?
Honestly, it feels like the company is filled with warring factions and the users are collateral damage.
