EatATaco @ EatATaco @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

2,804

Joined

2 yr. ago

You know you could have just left when you originally abandoned the point. But I can see you have strong feelings on the matter, if nothing else from your continuing response.

How strong my feelings are about the topic have nothing to do with the point. It's interesting, however, that you are trying to make this about me rather than the point. That just tells me you realize I've made a good point, but don't want to admit it.

The grain of salt but was directly tied to interviewing citizens affected by the disaster

Except the only one that was interviewed who could be considered a victim is Kemp. Which is where the confusion came from. If you are saying that victims statements should be taken with a grain of salt, and in the context there is one victim, then it sounds like you are showing some doubt about what they are saying.

Im reading your post in the context of the article. The only one who they got a comment from that could be considered a victim is Kemp, and you said they should be taken "with a grain of salt." It now appears your post had nothing to do with the article, but just disasters in general.

It has nothing to do with me wanting anything, but you talking about some kind of unrelated and that causing confusion.

But what does this have to do within the context of what the article is talking about? Again, it sounds like you are dancing around, but still kind of implying, that the government of Georgia might not be telling the truth when it comes to what Biden has done.

Where are all the posters who, when people were pointing out that this is the result of climate change, screamed about not making this political? This guy is straight up lying for his own political benefit and they seem silent.

What's the point of this post? Your third paragraph, with the "grain of salt" statement, in context, makes it sound like you think the governor may be lying about the president calling him. Is this accurate?

Won't somebody please think of the poor billionaire, ex POTUS! He is just an innocent victim in this whole thing!

Holy shit you should be fucking so embarrassed. That link literally says, right in the first line, that it is just "reportedly" it's not him being quoted. It literally confirms what the other poster said and absolutely contradicts what you said.

It's okay to be wrong, but fuck man, you shouldn't of read at least the first line of your sources to make sure they support your claims when you submit them. That's just mind numbingly dumb.

No worries. It was obvious in retrospect

Switch to what exactly?

So essentially you’re saying that communication falls apart and you don’t have the correct tools for remote work.

The problem is that I don't know of any tool or set of tools that fixes this. We have an extensive chat system that is open all the time with rooms for each group, we have zoom, we use all kinds of collaboration software. Everyone knows these are available, and uses them, but the hurdle inherent to it seems to be just enough to really put a damper on seeking help.

I think the best solution would be to have a zoom room where everyone is in it all the time. Which sounds even more miserable.

I know I'll be downvoted, but I'll answer your question.

"Need" is a strong word. Sure, it's not needed. But that's not what the business tends to care about. They care about productivity.

I work in software. In my previous job I was a one man show. For my day to day development, I didn't need to interact with other people much. When I shifted to remote working it was a huge boost because I got protected time to work where I wasn't distracted by other people in the office, either socially or incidentally. This case it worked very well.

After the pandemic I switched jobs into one with a hybrid schedule. Luckily for me my job is a 15 minute bike commute.

However, the suite of tools I'm now developing and working on require me to constantly interact with other people in the office. I also spend a lot of time mentoring jr devs.

This is, quite frankly, just better when we're all in the office. The jr devs know, explicitly, that they can bother me whenever they need it. In the office this happens probably an average of 8 times a day. When either of us is remote, it's probably once a day.

Now with the other senior devs, we hate meetings. However, all the time, spontaneously, we'll end up chatting in our little section about the development of the system, someone will overhear (maybe even from an adjacent group) and chime in with useful knowledge. Next thing you know we have 4 or 5 devs whiteboarding and discussing things. Most of the fine tuning of our systems get hashed out in these impromptu meetings. This never happens when we're remote.

Also the barrier to just turning around and asking someone something is so much lower. Often 30 seconds. Because at home I have to send them a message, maybe message back and forth a bit before determining that it would be easier on zoom, then we have to jump on zoom which takes a small amount of time. Now this is not some huge thing, but it is a barrier that makes it just hard enough that he happens way less frequently.

Working in the office is just better for productivity in this type of situation, which i imagine is true for most jobs that involve lots of collaboration. Almost all of my coworkers agree. We also all agree that remote is better because commuting sucks. It honestly even boggles my mind to hear other software devs argue that they are more productive at home. Believable if we are talking about my original situation, or if you're just mindlessly closing tickets. But for collaborative development of large systems? No way.

Yeah but bringing people back is still more expensive because it means more maintenance, more cleaning, and in the case of Amazon paying more for the office perks.

I'm sure at some point, somewhere, someone forced people to rto because it was better for their real estate investment....but I just have not been able to make sense of the claims that this is driving factor.

Oh that would make more sense.

Please expand because the article is about "protest votes" and the top level comment I responded to is seemingly about how the doctor who wrote it should have earned less money. It seems completely non sequitur.

What does this have to do with anything that is being discussed in the article?

what if you’re moving the goal post because you can’t admit that you realise I’m right?

Lol go back and read my first post and then tell me how I'm moving the goal posts. Don't worry, at this point, I don't actually expect you to.

Try to not just assume things about people’s subconscious

It was hardly an assumption. It's pretty typical behavior for people to not want to admit they are wrong. And you're kind of proving I hit the nail on the head by completely abandoning actually defending your position and throwing out the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"