Board 8 > Moving to San Francisco

(+) Yeah! (+)

foolm0r0n posted...

Keep in mind I'm arguing with people who think it's laughable to suggest there's a better way to communicate than swiveling a chair.

Why do you keep emphasizing the chair, an irrelevant and unnecessary detail, as opposed to the actually relevant part which is just communicating in person? Almost like you're intentionally distorting the point to artificially discredit the notion.

Can people communicate effectively remotely? Obviously. Nobody is saying otherwise.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

what even is this topic

It's people actually earnestly discussing something with foolmo, which is the most miserable thing you could do other than existing as foolmo.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

what even is this topic

It's people actually earnestly discussing something with foolmo, which is the most miserable thing you could do other than existing as foolmo.

I lol'd

Some B8ers constantly argue with users who are most different from themselves...other B8ers constantly argue with users who are most similar to them...I engage foolmo and Lopen out of love, tbqh.

I generally avoid engaging foolmo on policy. I thought he was coming off as more reasonable than usual so I gave it a go. I do think he's not entirely wrong here-- just a bit narrow minded in the potential costs of remote work in terms of lost clarity and delays due to communication breakdowns.

Anyway as you can see by what happened in this topic I am doing the board a service with this policy and you should all be thankful.

(I also take offense at the notion that I'm anything like foolmo, and I'm sure the feeling is mutual. Just very different styles of arguing even if I'm nearly as stubborn.)
---

Technically I didn't say you two were similar, I just said I'm similar to both of you. >_>

Or well, that's what I meant anyway.

Saying that face to face communication is the worst form of communication isn't exactly what I'd call reasonable lol.
---

turbopuns3 posted...

Why do you keep emphasizing the chair, an irrelevant and unnecessary detail

Because it is emblematic of the issue, at least in tech. Do you know how many tech managers have talked to me about their culture of chair swiveling? Despite what you keep thinking, this is far from the first time I've talked about this.
---

turbopuns3 posted...

Nobody is saying otherwise.

People are treating it like a freak accident that you are born with, rarely, like being double jointed or something. And that it's ludicrous that it could be better than in person communication.

It is a skill that EVERYONE can learn, just like programming or excel or whatever else you do on your computer. And in-office communication is generally so bad that it doesn't take much of this skill to match it with remote work. It's obviously preferable to being on the road 4 hours a day. These ideas are completely laughable and absurd to everyone (ITT and also most every IRL person too), so don't pretend like I have nothing to argue about.
---

Waluigi1 posted...

Saying that face to face communication is the worst form of communication isn't exactly what I'd call reasonable lol.

Chair swiveling specifically is the worst. There are fine forms of face to face comms but you need async/remote comms to set it up first.
---

I think foolmo is being genuine here, but he just happens to work in an industry of people whose brains don't function like most. The developers I know get really nervous and begin to sweat out mountain dew the moment that they have to talk to another human being or, god forbid, present something to a group. I can see why many would function better in a remote setting.
---

Most people don't actually prefer that nearly all their daily human interaction is with their coworkers. It's largely a culture instilled by extroverted CEOs who enjoy buying their friends.

And actually lots of CEOs are embracing remote too now that it's not acceptable to hit on every 17 year old intern that rolls through the office. Tech is weirdly behind the curve compared to others.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Most people don't actually prefer that nearly all their daily human interaction is with their coworkers. It's largely a culture instilled by extroverted CEOs who enjoy buying their friends.

And? Some people are extroverted and like to interact with their coworkers.

I mean I guess you can say "you're all just brainwashed wage slaves!" which I know you like to say, but I could just say the opposite "this work from home culture is instilled by introverts who are afraid to put themselves out into the world" and it would have just as little clout with you as your extrovert comment would have with me.

For the record I don't literally swivel my chair. I was speaking loosely because I didn't realize that my proximity to certain inanimate objects had such a major impact on my face to face communications.

Honestly a lot of people are saying it as a jab but representing the entirety of why face to face communication is better by chair swiveling really does make me wonder about technical communication skills, as it's a skill you use in all facets of life not just talking to co-workers.

Like the gist of that skill is phrasing things so your audience will understand you best. Misrepresenting a discussion that has had valid points (by your own admission) by calling it all chair swiveling feels like the opposite of that.
---

Anyway.

Yeah, remote communication can be situationally better, and so can in person communication. Clearly you have more experience in organizations where remote is preferable, so good for you, but your adamant stance that in person communication is necessarily awful almost by definition is at best a silly exaggeration.

When I chimed into the conversation initially I was speaking for myself and about my own situation, not to say that remote communication cannot work, but simply to offer an example of face to face communication being preferable. The presumptions you made about me and my coworkers were good for a laugh. I don't guess you've ever been a part of an effective team that worked well together in person (not just at a job but any sort of team), which is a bummer, but if you can navigate life without it then go for it.

I'm not quite understanding this loathing for swiveling one's chair. I frequently get up and walk out of my office to talk with coworkers, which surely takes more time and energy than swiveling my chair around. I'm sure it takes longer too, and I guess you could argue that it's lowering my productivity by wasting time, but if my productivity were being monitored to that extent that this would be considered wasting time, I would really feel like a wage slave.

If I had no coworkers to talk to, I would still get up constantly and probably spend 25% of the workday standing/pacing.
---

turbopuns3 posted...

For the record I don't literally swivel my chair.

Yeah you're using it in the same euphemistic way that I am, so don't act confused at how I use it.

turbopuns3 posted...

And? Some people are extroverted and like to interact with their coworkers.

Right, which is why remote work is important. It lets EVERYONE create the work environment they work best in. Extroverts can hang out with other extroverts at the co-working space or literally a million other places that are filled with people trying to hang out. And introverts can stay at home or whatever.

The only "downside" is if you NEED to know you are bothering people who don't want to be bothered, in which case you're an enormous asshole who needs to be punished by the system. So that's actually another plus of remote.
---

turbopuns3 posted...

The presumptions you made about me and my coworkers were good for a laugh. I don't guess you've ever been a part of an effective team that worked well together in person

How about you don't launch a bunch of terrible presumptions at me 1 sentence after dismissing my "presumptions"?

Nothing I presumed from you was a guess. It's all based on what you told me. You think less of your remote coworkers because they are lazy millennials. You can only handle hard problems face to face. These are things you have said yourself, and all I am doing is telling you that makes you an inferior communicator.

(To be clear, I'm specifically going hard on you because you have the same job as me and I've gone through a dozen of anti-remote people exactly like you before. I don't know Gin and others' industries so I can't talk about that as much as with you.)

You and Lopen on the other hand, feel the need to "guess" weird things about my career, like I never worked on an effective in person team, I am a special remote snowflake, and other nonsense that is laughably easy to prove wrong if you just asked.

But that's why through all this, you guys have yet to ask for even ONE piece of evidence from me. You would rather keep "guessing/presuming" because you know I know better than you here.
---

All my "guesses" have been based on your stated beliefs, my known limitations of remote work vs in person work based on personal experiences (limitations you yourself have acknowledged as having some merit in this topic), as someone who does both often, and the way you conduct yourself on the board. I'm using evidence the same way you are, bud.
---

Why did you resurrect this topic to continue being a putz.
---

Bump
---

I had it half typed for a while, just didn't have time to post it until yesterday. Would've been a waste to just let it go unposted you know?

Lopen posted...

limitations you yourself have acknowledged as having some merit in this topic

Where? Maybe it was someone else's post.

And your first post thought I was saying remote work was easy, and straight up guessed that I had no experience, that I lucked into 1 exceptional remote working team and I'm using that are the whole basis of my argument. There's absolutely nothing in what I have stated that could lead to those "informed conclusions".
---

Post 136.

And I am saying your experience with remote work likely lacks diversity due to your thoughts given in the topic. Pretty simple. They feel really narrow and base. Someone who has remoted and non-remoted with a wide variety of competences, field overlaps, etc, would simply not be saying remote is always better as an absolute. As with many things in life it's a cost benefits thing. Your experiences sound of someone who has only worked in remote situations where the cost was low (you are remoting to communicate to people who aren't prone to the pitfalls of remote communication, or you're too self-centered to realize they are falling in them because hey you got yours), or the benefits were super high (you're remoting to save several hours of commute every time rather than in a mix of situations).

You also insist you're really good at technical communication yet display no evidence you are effective at communicating thoughts clearly on the board, preferring to obfuscate your points in a cloud of condescension, bad jokes, or misrepresenting the other side so people can't absorb or engage them easily. If you don't communicate clearly in any interaction on the board, why should I give you any benefit of a doubt and think you have any clue of how to do it in a workplace setting?

It's a guess to an extent, sure, but based on the same kind of evidence you're making guesses based on. That's all I'm saying.
---

Posting to say I agree with Lopen completely.
---

I'm not anti-remote. I'm not sure when or why you started thinking I am.

In my first post, I said

turbopuns3 posted...

I mean I'm a software developer and when my team was given the option to try working from home, I still came to the office (though a couple people on my team stayed home) because I just work better in that environment for a number of reasons (human interaction being one). But my drive to work is 10-15 minutes so maybe it doesn't matter.

I work better.

I never said nobody could ever work better remote. I never said people shouldn't work remote.

I said I work better in the office, and you said that's like the worst possible way to communicate ever, and I responded to that. I don't think I ever argued that remote work cannot be effective.

foolm0r0n posted...

Nothing I presumed from you was a guess. It's all based on what you told me. You think less of your remote coworkers because they are lazy millennials. You can only handle hard problems face to face. These are things you have said yourself

I did not say any of that nor did I imply it. You just chose to extract the most convenient possible interpretation of things in order to push your point.

You said, with almost no context whatsoever,

foolm0r0n posted...

You are less effective than them.

You said this knowing nothing beyond the fact I do not work remote and they do work remote.

This assertion assumes a lot so you don't get to act like it doesn't.

Given no further context, you assumed the utmost optimism of my coworkers and the worst about me, ("They work from home and you do not, ergo they are more effective than you"), without even knowing them or me or anything about the organization of our workplace.

So, I'm sorry but you come across like a grossly self-important smug ass here. I never asked for your sources because I don't give a damn about your sources because they aren't going to change my situation whatsoever.

Have you gotten a chance to do anything cool since moving here? Or still just settling in?

---

And I said I guess you've never been on an effective in-person team only because I can't fathom how someone could have a positive experience working closely on a team and then turn around and say communicating with humans face-to-face is the most awful method possible.

Lopen posted...

Someone who has remoted and non-remoted with a wide variety of competences, field overlaps, etc, would simply not be saying remote is always better as an absolute

This is so illogical. It's like anti-scientists saying that Newton and Einstein were disproved therefore all current science is false too. All my experience has shown it's a broadly good thing, and more experience only shows me solutions to difficulties, further solidifying my theories and arguments. Why would I not be adamant that it should be a goal for us to reach? If I get any decent counter evidence, THEN I'll change my mind. How could anything else make sense to a programmer?

turbopuns3 posted...

I can't fathom how someone could have a positive experience working closely on a team and then turn around and say communicating with humans face-to-face is the most awful method possible

Same with this. You guys are programmers, how is this even a question? I've made a ton of stuff I'm proud of using OOP, so now I can't recognize its horribleness? It makes no sense. You would never use this kind of logic to technical issues, but when it comes to "soft" skills, your standards totally drop. (And no, I don't need "more experience" just to go back to my college-tier thoughts on OOP.)
---

Lopen posted...

You also insist you're really good at technical communication yet display no evidence you are effective at communicating thoughts clearly on the board

I am not using technical communication here. I'm arguing with people who think it's laughable to promote remote work by default, and treat me like I kicked their dog when I suggest it might be better than commuting 4 hours a day. If I was laughed out of a work meeting for an idea, I also wouldn't use technical communication.

That said, my thoughts have been very clear from my first post and no one has really misinterpreted any of them (misrepresented sure). Everyone just vehemently disagrees. I'm trying to persuade but that's a whole other thing, I never said I was good at that.

turbopuns3 posted...

You said this knowing nothing beyond the fact I do not work remote and they do work remote.

You said all you solve all your hard problems face to face, therefore excluding your remote coworkers. That's why I said they were more effective (assuming they don't limit their communication). I made a little leap to say you look down on them (since I've seen it so many times before) but you proved me right with the twitch comment anyways.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

All my experience has shown it's a broadly good thing, and more experience only shows me solutions to difficulties, further solidifying my theories and arguments. Why would I not be adamant that it should be a goal for us to reach? If I get any decent counter evidence, THEN I'll change my mind. How could anything else make sense to a programmer?

So you're a programmer who only accounts for failure conditions that you're able to prove exist via observing them occur via the way you use your program?

I certainly couldn't imagine any other way to approach discovering potential problems while coding!!!
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

My commute in Pittsburgh was worse, tbh.

Ended at 5, got home at 6:30. I'll end at 5:30 and probably get home no later than 6:30 too. I have to see how the timing is but the train is 35 minutes to and back.

Brother people simply do not understand how ridiculous commutes in the burg are unless theyve lived there. The commute from Reed Smith to McKeesport was hell.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

I am not using technical communication here.

I am aware. I'm saying evidence-- thousands and thousands of posts worth-- showing just how you attempt to convey thoughts on the board strongly suggests you are failing to do so for reasons beyond your control.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

You said all you solve all your hard problems face to face, therefore excluding your remote coworkers. That's why I said they were more effective (assuming they don't limit their communication).

There are so many bad assumptions baked into this I don't even know where to begin.

You assume that because I choose to resolve things face-to-face when it's an option, that I would automatically by definition leave problems completely unresolved if I was remote.

You assume all the solutions implemented by my remote coworkers are better and more effective than my solutions.

You assume that my remote coworkers would not also use face-to-face communication to resolve difficult tasks if they were in the office. Just because they're remote and they ultimately set the work item to "resolved" state does not mean their solution was optimal or more effective.

foolm0r0n posted...

I suggest it might be better than commuting 4 hours a day.

Lopen posted...

Your experiences sound of someone who has only worked in remote situations where the benefits were super high (you're remoting to save several hours of commute every time rather than in a mix of situations).

But yes please continue to pretend I'm 'guessing'
---

Eddv posted...

Brother people simply do not understand how ridiculous commutes in the burg are unless theyve lived there. The commute from Reed Smith to McKeesport was hell.

you should try the commute in Tokyo

---

VintageGin posted...

Have you gotten a chance to do anything cool since moving here? Or still just settling in?

Not yet! I'm waiting until I actually get a paycheck to explore first.

Eddv posted...

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

My commute in Pittsburgh was worse, tbh.

Ended at 5, got home at 6:30. I'll end at 5:30 and probably get home no later than 6:30 too. I have to see how the timing is but the train is 35 minutes to and back.

Brother people simply do not understand how ridiculous commutes in the burg are unless theyve lived there. The commute from Reed Smith to McKeesport was hell.

Dude, don't get me started about Robinson, where they kicked everyone out of five different places to park in the span of a year and a half. And if you wanted to use the legal park and ride, you get home over 2 hours and 15 minutes later.

Pittsburgh has the dumbest fucking road layout of any major city ever.
---

Lopen posted...

So you're a programmer who only accounts for failure conditions that you're able to prove exist via observing them occur via the way you use your program?

I don't dismiss observed failures because "works on my machine", no

Lopen posted...

But yes please continue to pretend I'm 'guessing'

What? I'm using the 4 hour example as something that ANYONE should think remote work is a good alternative to, but instead it was treated like an insane idea.

My arguments, which I haven't even dared to get into, are about async communication in general, including in person/in office (i.e. 0-hour commute). I personally have worked remote to avoid a 12 minute commute too. We can't even get past the "pros/cons situational benefits" of the 4 hour commute though.
---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Not yet! I'm waiting until I actually get a paycheck to explore first.

Dude, don't get me started about Robinson, where they kicked everyone out of five different places to park in the span of a year and a half. And if you wanted to use the legal park and ride, you get home over 2 hours and 15 minutes later.

Pittsburgh has the dumbest fucking road layout of any major city ever.

Yeah and like granted - we could have driven.

But that public transit took THAT long and still represented an enormous savings over driving/parking before you even factored in the inevitable care repairs that the shitroads forced on you

---

turbopuns3 posted...

You assume all the solutions implemented by my remote coworkers are better and more effective than my solutions.

Definitely not. We're just talking about communication. They could be total dumbasses for all I know, but their communication structure is better. They can learn to program as well as you, but you (clearly) won't learn to communicate like them. That's why I say they are more effective.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

They can learn to program as well as you, but you (clearly) won't learn to communicate like them. That's why I say they are more effective.

I used to have a job that was live chat (instant messaging) techincal support and my pay rate was determined by customer satisfaction surveys, in which I was consistently in the highest tier (>95% satisfaction)

My job prior to being a developer was also a technical job where I had to communicate countless times per day with external customers - half techincal, half non-technical - via email only, for 2.5 years. (When it was particularly involved they would call me on the phone-- because it's more effective when you have a lot to discuss)

Prior to that I had a job where all I did all day was call people on the phone and support technical issues remotely.

Now that I'm a dev my team rates me as the best communicator.

When I was younger I was the lead in a few different plays and have been in musicals, public speaking roles, etc. basically since I was 15.

For goodness sake, stop talking to me like I'm some ass-backward stubborn nincompoop who just doesn't have a clue.

Please, if you're going to keep on about it, share with us these almighty _sources_ you have. Show me the science that's going to prove to me once and for all that I should never look my coworkers in the eye again. I really can't wait to see it.

foolm0r0n posted...

I don't dismiss observed failures because "works on my machine", no

I have observed failures, and you dismiss them, so evidence suggests otherwise.

foolm0r0n posted...

I'm using the 4 hour example as something that ANYONE should think remote work is a good alternative to, but instead it was treated like an insane idea.

Does pretending to be a martyr get you off or are you just really bad at absorbing what people are saying? Like you wonder why I have doubts that you are capable of communicating effectively when this is your take on what the discussion has been? Like to be a good technical communicator you also need to be able to understand who you're communicating with, even if you delude yourself into thinking they're bad at it and blaming them. If you just misunderstand where their issue is, you'll never be able to figure out what they don't get, and thus you won't be able to clarify anything.
---

This giant argument over a commute that is really not that bad

---

Foolmo, has it occurred to you that people might feel a 4 hour commute is worth it to be around people they like? That could be because they don't feel the commute is particularly onerous. Or they just like being with people a lot. Like how I like pork belly or the color blue.

Your argument appears to be that anything that can be done in person can be done remotely with sufficiently advanced technology and if it doesn't happen it must mean the tech isn't there yet or the people involved are poor communicators. This completely ignores people's subjective preferences and is a ridiculously prescriptive a worldview that treats your subjective preferences as proper norms for the whole world. This is a bad argument on so many levels it's amazing Lopen has bothered to put so much effort into rebutting it.

And yeah, condescension does not make an argument good. It does drive people away from arguing with you, but that's not because they were convinced, they just don't want to be in a hostile environment where they are condescended to.
---

It's board 8 what do you expect?

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Not yet! I'm waiting until I actually get a paycheck to explore first.

Ah, makes sense. Let me know if you want any recs. Although even if money's an issue I'd still reccomend checking out some of the hiking spots around the area. The hills around Berkeley and Oakland have a pretty fantastic view of the bay.

---

I think trying to boil it down to subjective preference dumbs it down and plays into the exact kind of concession foolmo wants.

It's not just about "I prefer interacting with people" vs "I don't." Like I don't really wanna get into a remote cock measuring contest (one I lose to puns based on his stated credentials, to be clear) but I'd be extremely surprised if Foolmo has used remote to interact with anything but a fairly small group of peers in a coding team based on his thoughts, oftentimes the same peers regularly, where communication breakdowns are less prone to happen because it's a regular thing and you have a lot of experience communicating with those same people.

As a programmer who often needs to provide IT support and also work with the end user a lot, I have done it in that situation, and also a wide variety of others, most of the time in situations where the commute saved is 5-15 minutes so I'm inherently humoring both options, I've done both options with literally hundreds of people of varying experiences and backgrounds and have observed the benefits and pitfalls of both approaches.

On teams of people in your field specifically, most of your problems lie in less senior members (I've been on both sides of this, being the more experienced and less experienced) being less inclined to iron out a full understanding in a remote situation, as remote sorta inherently suppresses flow of dialogue, causing them to waste a lot of time to "figure it out themselves" in particular with completely new bits of codebase and such. That can be good for learning, but oftentimes it's just a waste of time and spoon feeding any ambiguities in the starting point is a better use of time, letting them learn more about it as they interact with the codebase in a way that actually adds to it. But you can't just assume they need to be spoonfed everything either, otherwise your more important points become obscured. Hence why the async communication is never quite optimal in those situations. As you work with them more, and on more familiar terms, it will be closer to optimal.

When there's a more limited overlap in skillets it also becomes an issue of it becoming increasingly implausible to present an ironclad remote friendly communication. Like if I'm a programmer with some math background talking to another programmer who is primarily a Mathematician who has been brought in for theoretical knowledge more than coding, it's not reasonable for either of us to fully grasp the levels of understanding of the other very well and a face to face can really iron out things a lot more efficiently and get us both moving quicker.

And then you've got the people who just are kinda bad at understanding things as the receiver of information without it being eye to eye, back and forth. That doesn't mean they're bad at their job-- it's not optimal to simply fire them because they're not good at processing information that they can't provide immediate feedback to and have all the extra inputs that face to face gives you, but they inherently just have trouble conveying themselves in a remote situation so if you want them at maximum efficiency being face to face is just more effective if possible. Saves you a lot of time clarifying yourself remotely, and them a lot of time processing what you're communicating.

These are not hypotheticals. These are situations I've observed. I feel if you're the kind of person who has remoted with like 10 or 20 co-workers on a coding team, several times, and haven't really been broad with the types and number of people you've worked with, you're just not going to understand all the scenarios where remote can fail, especially since it's so often not going to be obvious you're not conveying yourself properly because the lost productivity isn't on your end, but it can. That doesn't mean it isn't far better in many situations as well, and if the commute is 4 hours it being better as an absolute may even be close to accurate just cause of that high cost, but yeah.
---

I think foolmo's point about being able to learn to work remote is valid. Whether it's quite as effective as in person is a different topic that i don't really care to discuss.

But I think a big caveat is that a new developer who needs guidance will not learn as fast remote. Additionally a bad developer will probably be worse remote.

A team of experienced good developers working remote can easily learn and become effective working remote but it's a lot of if's. It definitly can work, and in some case the slight loss in productivey may not outweigh some of the advantages.
---

I definitely am a lot closer to agreeing with foolmo than it comes off. I do think that you can get better at communicating effectively in an asychronous remote friendly way and it doesn't even take a ton of effort, and ideally everyone would-- the skills help you in all forms of general communication even if you're not actually working remotely. Knowing how to phrase things for your audience is an incredibly valuable skill.

The reality of life is not everyone is effective at it though and both sides in any given exchange are limiting factors, not just you-- and it's not always something you immediately know either. Programming especially is a weird field where it won't always be obvious that something isn't clicking until it's gone on a while, and then at that point you've done some good damage in terms of lost productivity, either cause the dude isn't coding anything, or the dude is coding a bunch of filth someone is gonna need to clean up later to integrate well. There are just a lot of factors going in. This lost productivity risk is the case even in non-remote, but it's harder to detect remotely.

He just seems kinda ignorant of a lot of nuance on the subject and comes off as a pretty poor example of someone I'd expect to be an authority on technical communication to boot (like if you consistently for 10+ years discuss things in a way that suggests you're not absorbing the conversation there's a very good chance that you're just not a good communicator in general and you're damage controlling things by claiming it's intentional) which rubs me the wrong way and sends me into rants. I can't shake the image of a foolmo email to a bright eyed newbie co-worker laying the groundwork for a project consisting of him explaining things in an overly complex manner with extensive focus on a bunch of minor points and poorly laying out the big picture, and then saying "git gud it's all right there" when asked questions about it.
---