No idea about what big CEOs feel but for me, I would absolutely continue working even if I was a trillionaire someday. What matters and drives me would be impact and influence I could have on society. Have couple billions? Throw them on things I care about and keep getting more to throw at the same.
I have been told I look like a software engineer or a maths teacher all the time.
I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with how I dress or look but simply because of stereotypes associated with Indians. If I was whiter, people would say fitness coach.
The simplest reason is lack of effective communication, team bonding, and morale.
People behave differently behind a screen even if incentivised by money. This becomes a problem at the scale of big companies.
Eg - without body language, tone and context - everyone needs to be extra charitable to avoid miscommunication or distrust. This might cause people to be overly defensive in their approach to communicate.
I've said this in other places, but as a _manager_ it's much nicer to work in the office, in person. That gets more true the higher up the management chain you go. Managers spend most of their time in meetings. Meetings suck over video chat. This is the entire reason CEOs (and pretty much everyone between them and line employees) would rather everyone come back to work. It makes their workday more pleasant.
The idea of in-person meetings only works if there is one office where everyone is at.
I was forced to move to another state (pre-pandemic). The people on my team were in offices, but 5 different offices. So I moved to another state to be in an office, so I could sit on the phone all day, every day. There is no sense to that. It’s no exaggeration that the forced move cost me tens of thousands of dollars… and for what?
I recently had a FAANG recruiter reach out to me and when I brought up this concern when I was told I’d need to relocate to an office location, I was told the recruiter was in a similar portion on her team, spending all day on the phone because her team is spread across multiple offices.
In person meetings are great, but if the reality of the office strategy isn’t going to make them possible, then there is no point. I think the occasional in-person meetup can do a lot to build rapport with members of the team without being in an office all the time, or on a weekly hybrid schedule.
I’d go a step further to say that a meeting where 3 people are in a conference room and others are remote, is worse than everyone joining remote or from their desk. Meetings should either be 100% in-person, or 0% in person. Anything in between is a bad experience. I think it’s a safe bet that any company making news about return to office strategies has multiple offices with teams spread across multiple cities, states, and even countries. This makes meetings a poor justification for workers being in the office.
>Meetings should either be 100% in-person, or 0% in person. Anything in between is a bad experience.
Agreed, even one person joining remotely completely changes the meeting. The remote person is slightly out of sync with everyone, can't participate in any whiteboarding sessions, and you lose the connection because they are a face (or icon) on the screen and they are looking at a wide angle feed of the entire room.
Managers and execs ought to already know that not everyone else is an exec, and don’t have the same face-to-face requirements, and do actually need time to do the “productivity” that nets execs their fat pay checks.
Meetings tend to be some the least productive activities, especially when everything "discussed" could have been sent out as an email (which can be read remotely).
Meetings can only be replaced with E-mail if people actually read (and respond to) their E-mail, and I've found fellow employees' E-mail hygiene to be pretty spotty.
Depends on the type of meeting. Where I work, we have a short 15-minute meeting every morning that's done over video call, just to see who's working that day and make sure everyone is on the same page. The CEO constantly does screen-share meetings with clients so they can show him what they're trying to do with the product, and he can watch the recording later and break it into tasks to give to us. I'd say it works pretty well. Without this the product would lose out on a lot of valuable feedback.
They behave differently behind screens, yes, but I would not say the negatives outweigh the positives. I have worked, and worked with, tons of people in both scenarios. Some of the best colleagues I never/rarely saw in person. Some of the worst were around all the time.
There are abandoned city projects like Amravati, Lavasa and others. The scale and reason behind ghost cities in India is different. Most stop construction mid way due to financial or regulatory constraints.
> Just yesterday Alephnerd was confidently proclaiming there are no tuk-tuks in Thailand anymore.
That's not true. He claimed there are no tuk tuks outside of tourist centers. Tuktuks are mostly used by tourists and getting phased out by the government as they are deemed unsafe.
I don't know what you guys are playing at. He said Thailand had "transitioned", past tense, to cars. And I walk, ride or drive past tuktuks outside of tourist centres almost every single day. The government is starting to try and phase out ICE tuktuks, because of noise and pollution concerns, and new electric ones are being introduced to replace them. They are not being phased out because they're deemed "unsafe".
Literally everything you said is wrong. Trivially, provably, wrong on all counts. Why are you making these type of comments?
I use what impact and benefit my work has to answer what I do.
In your insurance case, I would say something like "I build tools to shield businesses from unexpected disasters like earthquakes or floods" or "I help people worry less about expenses during an emergency"
If someone asks me more, then I might add on that I work on software to automate claim process or similar.
Because people will not invite you if you are not in the group chat. Unfortunately, people have forgotten how to call and are afraid of receiving calls.
This is more prominent among people who grew up with social media everywhere compared to ones who did not.
> The time for me to ring you, tell you this in voice would be far quicker than typing.
The post you I was responding to was talking about "group chat". How long would it take for you to call 6 people? How long would it take for you to text 6 people?
I'm all for calls from one person to another person, if you know that person doesn't mind voice calls. Text and group chats are great for coordination of groups.
Apologies. I meant when you are the only person who is not in the group chat or messaging platform, then people won't call you to invite. It is much higher friction.
I don't like calling because it's not like it used to be. Everything is so damned asynchronous these days even voice calls where it's supposed to be synchronous. When conversations were over copper/analog, yes I was younger, I enjoyed talking on the phone much more. Back then it felt like whether it was one person or three on the line there was actual presence and you could have two people talking on top of each other no problem.
Now, every conversation, whether it's by phone or zoom, feels like a struggle of who's going to take up the air time, trying not to talk over one another, dealing with delay, etc... It doesn't feel natural at all and there's little to no presence. Having smart phones makes it so much easier to tune out on a call and scroll reddit, check headlines or play a game. I agree that it's less convenient and takes too long for most things. I'd rather check in once a day with someone via text than have one longer phone conversation once a week.
If a friend is going to leave you out of an event purely because you do not use their preferred BigTech-facilitated chat tool, then I have some bad news for you: that person might not actually be your friend. Friends don’t treat each other that way.
Something that causes some friction might absolutely lead to people treating others this way. Like if coworkers stop by your desk to invite you to lunch but you are in a meeting so they go without you. Should they have left a message? Track you down in the meeting? Waste their lunch time waiting for you? Friction matters in a social context.
For adults, sure. We're talking about children/teenagers, they're all insecure and self-conscious and don't want to hang around with the weird kid because they then become a weird kid by proxy. And the smallest unusualness makes you weird.
Does it support editing the source-files while in the debugger?
I've been hesitant to move to TypeScript because I'm unsure how well the debugger works in practice.
My current platform is Node.js + WebStorm IDE as a debugger. I can debug the JavaScript and I can modify it while stopping at a breakpoint or debugger-statement. It is a huge time-saver that I don't have to see something wrong with my code while in the debugger and then find the original source-file to modify and recompile and then restart.
Just curious, do Deno and Bun support edit-while-debug, out of the box? Or do I need to install some dependencies to make that work?
