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?”

The poster said it was a click bait headline because it should have said they threw soup at plastic. There’s nothing pedantic about pointing out, as you agree, that the whole point was the shock factor of throwing it at the painting.

Shifting the debate to some more nebulous “what the article is trying to do” is moving the goal posts because you can’t just admit that you realize I’m right.

relying on the media going for the shock factor

Yeah, the shock factor of targeting the painting which is why a headline that says they threw soup at the painting is not click bait. It’s literally exactly what they explicitly and intentionally did. You recognize that, so why argue the opposite?

Yet the law

I said nothing about the law. We are talking about a headline. I absolutely agree that, because they knew they wouldn’t destroy the piece so there was no real intent to destroy it, jail time makes no sense.

Way to miss the point and insult me and my reasoning in the process.

If anyone missed the point, it’s you. If you are arguing that they intentionally argued targeted the painting for shock value, but at the same time it’s misleading the say that they threw soup at the painting, then that requires abandoning logic. This is not an attack on you, but an attack on the argument.

There is a kid on my son’s soccer team (East Coast) who is from Cali. I asked him why his family moved here. Unfased he said some forest fire burned his home down and then when they found a place to live again another forest fire burned it down. I guess is parents were like “fuck this.”

No. But I don’t believe this is even remotely an accurate analogy.

Let me try this way. If it’s no different than throwing soup against a plastic sheet…why didn’t they just hang up a plastic sheet in their home and do it there?

The whole point of this act was to target a famous painting to draw attention. They even say this was their intent.

You literally have to ignore what they said, abandon all reason, and undermine their goal in the process to hold the position that the more accurate description is to say they were just throwing soup at a sheet of plastic.

Is this a joke? They literally threw soup at the painting, but the painting was protected. And you’re calling this click bait and propaganda? I’ve seen some pretty ridiculous whining about click bait, but this might now take the top spot.

That’s the joke, but worse.

I think we would agree on a lot. Even our disagreement here - a weak endorsement vs a non-endorsement - isn’t that far off from one another.

You’re initial point was that she is a musician so nobody should care what she thinks, a straight up ad hominem, and now your whining about as hominems? I might be quite proficient at ad hominems, but your proficiency with hypocrisy puts mine to shame.

I can’t tell if you are actually this clueless or just disingenuous.

She can not vote at all, vote for someone else on the ballot, or write in whoever she wants. There is no forcing here. Certainly she was not forced to announce her decision. You seem to keep ignoring that second part. Your attempt to paint her actions here as “forced like a gun was to her head” is actually as cringe a you claimed my argument is.

And I couldn’t care less if this artist endorses Harris. I had never even heard of her before this and probably wouldn’t have heard about this endorsement if it weren’t for it making it here on lemmy. Your attempts to project your “taking sides” is your issue alone and not mine. I’m not the one who has, not once but twice, tried to paint her position as equivalent to having a gun to her head. You’re the one who feels compelled to make objectively ridiculous arguments in order to defend your position.

Funny, you have now moved the goal posts from “forced” to “she feels pressured” without a single admission that you used the wrong word.

Look, I recognize that it’s a weak endorsement, I’m not pretending it is something it’s not. But, by definition, it’s an endorsement; she publicly stated who she is voting for, revealing that she thinks the best way to cast her vote at this point is for harris. You just don’t want to accept the definition of word of “endorsement” and now “forced.” Endorsement doesn’t mean you’re over the moon ecstatic about the candidate. Plenty of right wings and conservatives have endorsed Harris, not because they agree with her policies but that they recognize what a disaster trump is for the country.

All it means is that you publicly show your support for a candidate…which she literally did by publicly saying she would vote for Harris.