Well, facebook shorts have plenty of people doing exactly this in their “amazing crafts” videos where a dude usually does something extremely stupid and hazardous. I eyeroll when one pops up now
I was going to say it might be junk solder, but the brand looks well reviewed. Maybe counterfeit? I just had to deal with a kid’s first soldering kit containing “solder” with no listed alloy percentages. Couldn’t solder worth a damn.
We have to stop identifying ownership with these billionaires and “their work” because it’s not. It’s a team of people who got together to accomplish a mission whether they succeeded or failed. How often is their success just a leader getting out of their way, and how often is failure because leadership was overbearing and “used their authority” to make poor decisions over the group.
“We” society only ever focus on these individuals and it’s horribly incorrect to do so.
We need to forget the celebrities and identity the groups.
Absolutely. As someone who manages a small team, my duties are advocating for the people who work for me, listening to the people closest to the problem, mediating disputes between people with different solutions, and ensuring we are all working towards the same overall goals. Most of the success of the team is directly attributed to their work. My biggest contribution is making sure they have what they need to do their job.
So, since you're support staff and economically a cost center and not a producer, they make more than you, right? You advocate for their wages first, right?
Could’ve removed the entire appositive of your first sentence,and removed “right?” to sound like less of an ass with your wording :) valid question though. my employer does operate this way
Not everyone in my position is a sniveling little shit, as much as you may think. I do get paid more than my team, but not by some ridiculous margin. The lowest paid person gets 70% what I do and the highest paid person is at 95%. When I took over it was no shit closer to 40% for the lowest paid member. I fought for that to be fixed and burned up a lot if political capital doing it too.
When COVID came along and pay cuts and layoffs were a real threat, I told my boss to cut my salary before anyone else’s. We never had to, thankfully, but I literally told him I would quit if they cut one of my subordinates pay or laid them off without first taking out of my pocket.
I had a direct report who, for three years wanted to be in a leadership role. I fought for a new position for him and put my own ass on the line recommending him for promotion every chance I got. He’s been promoted past me and I hope (since I can’t see his salary anymore) he is getting paid more than me because he’s earned it.
I’m not some superstar manager, but I do feel like I keep my team out of the political battles and turf wars so they can focus on doing what they do best without dealing with all that crap. That’s my job. When something goes wrong, I’m accountable. So when the people doing the work get it wrong and take a critical system offline by fat fingering a command, I’m the one answering the phones and taking all the shit for it and smoothing things over with stake holders. And unless it was a result of gross negligence, I’m not going to give them hell for it either because I’ve fucking been there before.
I didn’t even want this damn job. I was perfectly happy being the technical lead and not having job recruiting and performance reviews to do, but I took it because I knew at the very least I would do my best to advocate for the people I care about, and that’s not something I could say about everyone who applied.
So you can make snap judgements and assume because I manage a team that I’m just collecting a paycheck while everyone else does all the hard work, but I don’t and I won’t because it’s unethical and shitty and despite your own insecurities, I actually give a fuck about other people.
Considering how important it is to me that I’m not some piece of shit manager, yeah, it was a little personal. I take that kind of thing seriously. It kinda doesn’t work as a meme reference without the meme.
This is a shit posting community. Meme references should be assumed.
And I'm not your employee. Neither time nor place for your insecurities. Some conflict resolution skills ya got there.
Immediately talking about yourself, claiming authority, offended at the least thing, telling people what to think instead of showing those traits, serious in an unserious setting, and more. Your response to what started with a simple meme reference has me seeing more in common with the worst managers I've worked with in your actual behavior.
Anytime management gets involved with our work, it’s because there was a monumental fuck-up or because somebody is doing too much micro-management. In either case, it’s thrice as stressful as a normal project that goes slow as shit because everything has to be run by the big person.
Hey, if these guys do everything they can to make sure their companies’ “achievements” are considered all their own doing; let’s be fair and attribute all the fault of their failures as well.
But you’re right, billionaires ride on the shoulders of the people that do the actual hard work.
For music, to avoid this with record companies, I use a youtube downloader to rip songs from youtube then go to shows or buy shirts. Admittedly probably harder with movies or games, though.
I understand it as an attempt to get very basic, manual syntax highlighting. If all you have is white text on black background, then I do see the value of making keywords easy to spot by putting them in all caps. And this probably made sense back when SQL was first developed, but it’s 2023, any dev / data scientist not using a tool that gives you syntax highlighting seriously needs to get with the times
Partially, yes. I personally use an IDE with excellent syntax highlighting and those have been around for at least two decades. You are, however, often transplanting your SQL between a variety of environments and in some of those syntax highlighting is unavailable (for me at least) - the all caps does help in those rare situations.
More importantly though it helps clearly differentiate between those control keywords (which are universal) and data labels (which are specific to your business domain). If I’m consulting on a complex system that I only partially understand it’s extremely helpful to be able to quickly identify data labels that I’m unfamiliar with to research.
Well then use all-caps keywords whenever working on those systems, I don’t care. But an edge case like that shouldn’t dictate the default for everyone else who doesn’t have to work on that, that’s all I’m saying.
There are several cases where you'll be limited to console only, or log files, or many many other situations. Good coding practices just makes life easier all around.
JetBrains IDEs - IntelliJ, WebStorm, PyCharm, GoLand, etc., all support highlighting SQL embedded in another source file or even inside markup files like YAML. Does your IDE not support this?
As the other commenter said, the Jetbrains IDEs do this perfectly fine. Although I’d also argue that if you’re working with SQL from within another language already, a DSL wrapper is probably gonna be the better way to go about this.
Unfortunately RustRover is still garbage for actual usage. And I refuse to use an ORM when I can just write the SQL in a more common syntax that everyone understands across every language instead of whatever inefficient library-of-the-week there is. Raw SQL is fine and can be significantly more performant. Don’t be scared.
I’m not talking full blown ORM here, not a fan of those either. I’m talking about some light weight wrapper that basically just assembles SQL statements for you, while giving you just a little more type safety and automatic protection against SQL injection, and not sacrificing any performance. I’m coming from the JVM world, where Jooq and Exposed are examples of that kind of thing.
I’m currently using SQLx which you write raw queries in and it validates them against a currently-running db, using the description of the tables to build the typing for the return type instead of relying on the user. It makes it pretty hard to write anything that supports injection
Happens at compile time! It’s relatively quick. You can also run a command to write the query results to file for offline type checking which is mostly useful for CI
My ide isn’t limited to color when it comes to highlighting, so being color blind generally shouldn’t be a problem. Set keywords to underlined, bold, italic, whatever works for you.
Your other examples I can see, but at least at my work those are rare edge cases, and I’d rather optimize for the brunt of the work than for those. Of course at other places those might be much more of a concern.
Sorry, to clarify, not everything is in all caps. I’ll append my prefered syntax below
<span style="color:#323232;">WITH foo AS (
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> SELECT id, baz.binid
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> FROM
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> bar
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> JOIN baz
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> ON bar.id = baz.barid
</span><span style="color:#323232;">)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">SELECT bin.name, bin.id AS binid
</span><span style="color:#323232;">FROM
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> foo
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> JOIN bin
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> foo.binid = bin.id
</span>
The above is some dirt simple SQL, when you get into report construction things get very complicated and it pays off to make sure the simple stuff is expressive.
I’ve seen both approaches and I think they’re both quite reasonable. An indented join is my preference since it makes sub queries more logically indented… but our coding standards allow either approach. We’ve even got a few people that like
<span style="color:#323232;">FROM foo
</span><span style="color:#323232;">JOIN bar ON foo.id = bar.fooid
</span><span style="color:#323232;">JOIN baz ON bar.id = baz.barid
</span>
I believe this has been proven. It’s because capital letters all have the same shape whereas lower case letters do not. So your brain can take shortcuts to reading lower case but cannot with upper case.
Also most if not all editors will highlight SQL keywords so it’s probably not too hard to discern SQL commands and everything else in modern day.
I’m quite aware… basically it means that novice devs can create a table in camelCase and query in camelCase… but you can clean it all up as long as they didn’t realize you needed double quotes.
Fair point. I always disliked the design because ORMs pretty much always use quotes, so an entity-first approach can create a lot of tables with capital letters if you’re not careful, which is then really annoying if you need to use raw SQL for anything.
It’s an English literacy thing - we have several non-native English speakers and using only singular avoids making those folks’ lives harder. Besides it’s really nice to autopilot that categoryid is a foreign key to the category table. It also simplifies always plural words… I haven’t yet written CREATE TABLE pants but if I ever do there’s zero chance of me creating a pantid.
I tend to use underscores on join tables so table foo_bar would have a fooid and a barid. I have somewhat soured on this approach though since there are a lot of situations where you’ll have two m-m relationships between the same two tables with a different meaning… and having a fixed formula for m-m tables can make things ugly.
If I get to design another greenfield database I’ll probably prefer using underscores for word boundaries in long table names.
i guess the p and l are the important bits and the rest can just be inferred, since paracetamol is very commonly used and they’d get tired writing it in detail every time. other more specialized drugs with p___l (or close to it) as its name would have more squiggles i assume.
It’s (shorthand)[teeline.online]. It says “prc(t)ml” with the p being in the obvious spot (though it should be just a downward line), the r is the diagonal line after it, the c is the little curl, the t should be more pronounced, but it should be a horizontal line slightly above the rest, the m is a concave-down swoosh, and the l is the final curl. No vowels b/c they’re largely redundant.
It’s a super common prescription and most doctors probably couldn’t spell it offhand. Combined with dosing info it would be more obvious. Also if they do happen to be wrong it’s unlikely to actually cause harm with acetaminophen/paracetamol.
Edit: another benefit is disguising to a patient that demands something to take. Essentially a placebo.
In addition, there’s a psychological phenomenon where our brains only need the first and last letter of a word in the right place, and all the right letters in between in any order, to suss out a word. Our familiarity with a lngaauge will put it together, so presumably the same is true for healthcare providers’ common words.
Your e-----------e d-----t w----k w-----------t the c-----------t of the l---------s i-----------------n.
If they’re commonly used words the scribbles end up becoming a form of shorthand that doctors can recognize, but they’re meaningless to anyone who isn’t already familiar with them.
In adtidion, trehe’s a pshyocloigal pheonmneon where our bairns olny need the fsrit and lsat lteter of a word in the rghit pclae, and all the rghit ltertes in bteewen in any oedrr, to suss out a word. Our faiilamirty with a lagnuage wlil put it toehgter, so pseurambly the smae is treu for haehtlcare pvoerdirs’ cmmoon wdros.
Not sure but I think you mean chunking. When you know a word you don’t need to read all letters by themselves but know roughly what the word looks like as a whole, so you can read it faster. This also inrotrozutes a failure rate of course, but works pretty well.
I’m kind of surprised that the Bing guys don’t seem to have a system status page (that I could find) and haven’t managed to have any kind of status message put on their main page.
EDIT: This appears to be their official Twitter account, which is also silent on the matter as of this writing. If they’re unable to update their website, they might put something there as a way to get information out.
EDIT2: This is apparently their blog. Nothing there either as of this writing, but again, might try checking there, as it’s another route they might use to get information out if they cannot do so via their main page.
On July 29, 2009, Microsoft and Yahoo! announced a deal in which Bing would henceforth power Yahoo! Search, putting an end to Yahoo!'s in-house crawler.[2] For four years between 2015 until the end of 2018, it was powered by Google,[3] before returning to Microsoft Bing again.
Honest question, in what way do you think your comment is contributing to the conversation? At best it’s a recommendation bundled with a brag, which will only make people hate the thing you’re talking about even more, and at worst you’re making fun of people for simply using a different search engine.
You could have said something like “Fyi, Brave doesn’t use a bigger search engine as its base, so if you need to look something up rn you can use their search engine”, much nicer, not patronizing, and actually helpful
I think there's a lot of us who would ideally want to avoid both Microsoft and Google, and now that Bing is having problems it's more relevant than ever. I don't really see how the comment is braggy or patronising.
That said, I'm not comfortable using Brave either. I wish Mozilla or the Internet Archive would launch a search engine. Maybe both in cooperation. Then again, it would require Mozilla to bite the hand that feeds it.
Totally agreed. Hell, I’m even considering a full dive in Linux for the future. Anyone know if is possible to use something like Valve’s Proton to have windows programs run smoothly? (wine is kinda heavy)
For Games on Epic/Gog/Amazon use Heroic , for everything else/alternatively use Lutris. They set up everything for and apply specific patches with a steam like experience
It depends on what programs and how much do you need them. Some are fine with plain wine, some need more tinkering. There are multiple ways, starting from lutris, through bottles, to steam’s “non-steam game”. But still there are some SW that just won’t work on linux no matter what.
The reason why I interpret the comment as patronizing is how it is formulated as a personal comment, the choice of language, about how their choice of engine is hated, even though the comment they are responding to has not made an insinuation that choosing a search engine not based on the bigger ones is a bad thing (nor has it mentioned Brave at all), as well as how it is not contributing anything to the conversation apart from the information that the writer in question:
A. Uses Brave
B. Apparently made the ‘unpopular’ choice to use an independent search engine
C. Is aware of controversies surrounding Brave’s leadership
None of this information is a response or even reinterpretation of the prior text, as such it is akin to someone shouting “Well I use Android!!” in the middle of a conversation about how to solve a problem with FaceID
And about an independent search engine, I would also much prefer more options, but as you have already said, the organizations with the biggest potential are also currently quite unwilling to do anything to solve the situation
Yeah, fair enough. I read the post more favourably, as a "at least my alternative is still working well for me", but then also being aware that every time Brave is mentioned someone jumps on and reminds everyone that the CEO is a jerk, so it saves us the time by addressing it right away.
Well I didn’t intend for it to come off as to dickish or patronizing, but I guess I can see that now, and for that I am sorry. It might be my toxic personality bleeding trough :D
But you are totally correct, I could have phrased my comment wayyy better.
Also;
I don’t really like Brave at all, I don’t like Mozilla either. It’s more that I am forced to use something that doesn’t interrupt my productivity. Frankly I don’t like the state of the internet, and especially browsers, one of the the most important aspects of the experience. I’d really prefer to use something that is akin to Linux when it comes to browsers, i.e. not run by a board of ass wipes. Same for my search engine. I’m glad for the parts of it that are modernized-retro, i.e. easily being able to self-host/web-host containerized stuff, add stuff to your RSS feed, Lemmy etc. I’d like a browser that embodies some of that. I host a bunch of stuff on a Ubuntu laptop running Traefik and some containers… Gives me a warm feeling.
No worries, it’s understandable that sometimes we just accidentally let the inner asshole out.
My comment was also not something I usually write, but rather an accidental rant on my part. I’ve seen an increase in rude comments in recent times, and your comment was unfortunately the last drop in the bucket so to speak.
Long story short, I’m sorry for ranting at you, it wasn’t something I should have done in hindsight, and I intend to not let it happen again
I was paying for Kagi until recently, but they keep working on functionality I'm not interested in rather than lowering their prices. Other than that it was a fine experience, but too pricey, and the argument that that's the cost of running a search engine doesn't hold when they choose to develop all kinds of extra stuff.
I wish I liked SearXNG better, but the results are sadly not that great for me.
Based on the downdetector conversation, it’s “working intermittently”. I managed to get one search through on bing and a bunch of failures. No successes for duckduckgo.
EDIT: Also, while I was at least getting to the Bing main page without problems before – just getting errors when attempting to search – now even the main page is loading extremely slowly.
I’m kind of surprised that the Bing guys don’t seem to have a system status page (that I could find) and haven’t managed to have any kind of status message put on their main page.
Finally answering the question “If Bing was down, would anyone notice”?
Companies need to stop using TWITTER for anything. They’re walling up the garden we built, and it’s a cesspool of bots and run by a megalomaniac charlatan.
Nixos is at 23.11 :) Also, rolling releases are kinda fun: the latest commit so far is 46ae0210ce163b3cba6c7da08840c1d63de9c701 which roughly translates to nixos-unstable 403509863565239228514588166489915404446713104129 :D
Haha I don’t think it’s about fear. It’s probably about having hundreds of years of using those measurements, and it being very baked in to the language used between people to communicate.
Nobody wants to have to translate between kg and stone all the time. It’s tedious. If you live in a country where all your interactions are going to be in one measurement then you’re probably just going to go along with everyone else.
Even down to ‘goin down the pub for a pint’ being a commonly used phrase which doesn’t have the same ring when it’s '‘goin down the pub for a half litre’.
That’s the thing, they do use kg. So it is not something they don’t know about. Just that stone for people’s weight specifically somehow is still in use.
For the pint, I do not think it is about the volume when someone says that. As of they are only going to drink one anyway?! Replace it with beer and it is a perfectly normal thing to say.
Yes. The Brits still use a few non-metric measurements at times. In fact, it was America’s British heritage that got us Americans into the bad habit of using imperial over metric in the first place.
Stone only makes sense for people used to pounds, shillings and pence. For instance, “This costs 3 pound, 4 shilling and 8”, and, “I weight 12 stone, 6 pounds and 3 ounces”.
I attended a talk at a conference talking about how we live in a Cyberpunk future.
The speaker pointed out how we take stims (coffee) jack into cyberspace (put in earbuds to listen to music/podcasts/watch videos) have fully digital travel passes, etc. before then diving into some of the crazy surgeries and treatments that can be done now. It was a pretty entertaining take
I had to intubate patients as part of my clinical time for paramedic, which meant time in the OR. Some surgeons would let us hang out and watch the surgery. Orthopedic surgery sounded like a cross between a construction site and an automotive shop. Die grinders, saws, and power drills.
Also, apparently knee replacement involves one guy doing MMA submission moves on the patient’s leg while another goes at their exposed, hyper-flexed knee joint with a hammer and chisel.
This one time, I got to have my femur cut mostly through with a saw then slowly bent (did you know bones are viscous?) open and filled in with bone spackle then bolted together with a plate at screws, which was unpleasant.
You’re so right. Seeing the hardware, it’s post-op, so someone made a boo-boo. “No one has any idea” is code for: stalling for time to give the hospital’s legal team a head start.
The US military heard it and didn’t necessarily want to give away capability of listening devices around the sea floor.
The sub was difficult to get to the debris field because it was at an incredibly deep section that few craft are capable of reaching safely.
It was frustrating they made a big deal about something we ultimately could have done nothing about in the first place. However it’s not like the whole “hearing the implosion” thing was something the military wanted to give away and at that depth we have to be careful. Don’t forget we’ve put more people into space than have been to the deepest point on the planet.
So why did they reveal that info after if it was so sensitive? I wouldn’t have thought that would have changed anything. I also have vague memories of reports of a “sound” being detected early on but then not mentioned again until after. Then again my memory is trash so I dunno
How quickly they process the information, how accuratly they could determine the source, and how accuratly they could determine the location would all be fairly sensitive information.
Basically what I’m saying is that if they announced right after it happened that “Hey guys that sub imploded at X depth and the debris field will be at Y location because we heard a pressure vessel of the correct size crush followed by the sound of something of roughly the correct mass crashing into the sea floor.” Then everyone would know how capable our equipment is.
Basically announcing it days later gives a conclusion to the questions of what happened and also will likely keep others from meeting a similar fate. Not to mention the benefit of telling other countries that “Yes we can and will find out about what goes on underwater, just how quickly is more of a mystery… For you.”
No offence but if you have this line of thinking it’s fairly safe to assume other countries have people whose job it is to think this way who would have easily come to the same conclusion. I mean how quickly isn’t leaving too much to the imagination. I would just assume they’re capable of doing everything you mentioned plus more
So assume they can do it but if you invest to heavily in countering that assumption and your assumption turns out to be wrong you wasted resource on something that may be a better assumption?
Saying “We heard something in that multi square mile area that may be worth looking into” is way different than “We know exactly where and what it was”
And how quickly they could definitively identify what the sound was and where can play a big role in identifying capabilities of the systems at play and the how advanced they are
And of course knowing capabilities is a key part in developing systems to circumvent such systems
Basically what I’m trying to say in entirely too many words is that specifics matter a lot, especially to the military. And specifically knowing what someone is capable of can be used as a way of getting around it or using their own systems against them. Especially so that you know you’re not investing in systems research that is already defeated by anothers systems.
Don’t forget we’ve put more people into space than have been to the deepest point on the planet.
Fun fact, space is easier. It takes more effort to get there, sure. Coming from the “normal pressure” here on earth (about 1 atm) and going to space (0 atm) is a pressure difference of 1 atm. But: Diving into the ocean, the pressure increases the deeper you go. For every ~10 meters (~33ft) you go deeper, the pressure increases by 1 atm.
That means, that a space ships would only need to dive 10 m deep to get to the pressure difference it experiences in space. They went to see the Titanic which is about 3,800 m deep. So the sub needs to withhold a pressure difference that’s about 380 times higher than a space ship experiences.
(OK, little difference I omitted: In space you need to prevent the vehicle from exploding, while in the deep sea you need to prevent it from imploding)
Yup, it’s part of why the idea of rescuing them was never going to happen either. There’s only something like 3 subs in the world that can dive to that depth and they weren’t close enough nor built for rescue missions. Even if they were alive they only had 3 days worth of oxygen. Honestly they’re lucky that the “sub” just imploded rather than dealing with the slow loss of oxygen.
I’m not sure about that, hypoxia could be a fun time. CO2 poisoning would just be sleepy… So not as fun I guess. Waiting to die would definitely be lame though.
Try again. High CO2 is highly uncomfortable. You cannot catch your breath, headaches, confusion, body has to deal with blood trying to go more acidic… CO2 poisoning is anything but a nice nap.
Exactly. Your lungs don’t burn when you hold your breath because O2 is low, they burn because CO2 is high. Any other gas to displace the O2 is undetectable (aside from irritants and smells). It’s why huffing helium doesn’t burn but can make you light headed faster than you realize. That’s why CO poisoning is so dangerous. CO2 poisoning is torture. And yet CO2 pits are still legal for kill pits…
No. They heard it at the surface. You hear the equivalent of hundreds of pounds of explosives going off within a few thousand feet. It probably even vibrated the boat a bit.
It was the equivalent of a massive depth charge. They heard it at the surface near by unless the entire crew was sound asleep.
They also keep thinking I’m talking about the services they provide, and not, you know the actual fucking servers those services run on. Surprise, the servers themselves also need an operating system and the “server” you create is a Virtual Machine that lives on their actual, physical server and its OS.
Every day I learn more about how people don’t actually understand how the internet works.
AWS is closed source in some areas because they have not released the software they use to manage their platform. In other areas they have released the source code. It’s actually a pain in the ass that tools like LocalStack have evolved to fix.
Our country, sadly, still has executions, and some states are eager for them even as lethal injection supples are withheld in protest by foreign suppliers.
The problem is that there is literally no way to ensure that you never execute innocent people. And no, it doesn’t matter what solution you come up with, it’s not going to work. So you have to ask yourself: is killing people you think “don’t deserve to be alive” worth killing innocent people? Again, there is no option “kill them without killing innocents”. You either kill both innocent and guilty people, or you don’t kill anyone.
Unfortunately the death penalty is currently not about killing the criminal, but a good-looking death. Basically it does not matter if the person suffers for an hour, as long as it is not visible.
From hanging, electrocution, to gassing (yes, US did that at one point) and lethal injections, the method was always slow and painful.
With the lethal injections one, most chemicals were banned for it, so they are poorly researched by laymans, not as functional and literally made so the person is paralyzed, while they still can feel everything and can painfully be dying for half an hour.
In theory: yes. In practice though, they bring out your whole extended family, kids and all, to cheer on your death. If they show the slightest bit of sadness, then they must have been accomplices in whatever crime you are convicted of, and they’re next right then and there. Super chill place.
It depends on what you consider reliable. All that I am 100% sure of, is that you can’t drag a whole nation through one of the worst self induced famines in history without a revolution by asking nicely for patience while the well fed government “figures this thing out”. I tried…
I mean neither is North Korea, the woman that a blog claimed was killed that way has made a lot of public performances since then, but a good lie will spread forever
One of the authors of this paper is from the Chicago School and the Hoover Institution. Both are pro-business, anti-worker think-tanks that have been this way for decades. They also don't do any research of their own, but cite other papers that show the 5-20% reduction.
However, the methodology mentioned in the papers is suspect. First, they show that remote workers have the same productivity, but work longer hours. So the net output doesn't go down, they just spend more time working. Which raises the question: How many more breaks were they taking throughout the day? Being remote means a much more flexible schedule, so it's not uncommon to take longer breaks if you're a salaried worker.
Another study was IT professionals shifting to remote work at one company at the start of the pandemic. This one showed an 18% reduction in productivity. But considering the timing of this and that company culture and procedures can contribute to this, it doesn't seem to be a valid data point.
Then they bring up some common criticisms of WFH, which I've seen and refuted since I started working from home 2009: People can't communicate, working in groups is harder, and people can't control themselves. Yawn.
Honestly, the fact that they cherry picked hybrid work as being equally productive shows me this isn't about productivity, it's about keeping offices open. Which makes sense considering one of the authors is affiliated with groups that want to prop up the commercial rental business.
If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?
Also, with both studies cited, the best argument is that workers are happy to work more than 8 hours a day. Does that mean you should expect workers to be on call for longer than an 8 hour day because they are working remote?
If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?
Right, but you're no better than alt-right people on Facebook ignoring the research that's literally one click away because you're afraid it will disagree with you
I’ve been posting the Economist link in several comments. I left it as presented to show where the link came from in case people argued with the source.
This source just states that there is a disagreement over whether work from home is more or less productive and provides survey information to show the difference in opinion.
That isn’t making the argument that remote work is productive, just that workers view it as more productive and the study isn’t conclusive. The closest this study gets to saying if productivity increases is “In theory, both sides could be right[.]”
The source of the article is an economist at one of the most highly regarded economics programs in the world. Im less sure that the source is “suspect” and more that people do not like the conclusions they make.
Yeah. And it isn’t like there aren’t other reasons to maintain full remote work. It just happens to be that one of the reasons may not be accurate anymore based on further study.
I know in my line of work, employee retention is the main reason why full remote or hybrid is being maintained.
Exactly, Im not saying the conclusions are correct only that the program is one of the best and trying to portray it as biased because of that is inappropriate.
Yawn… even if it’s true, who give a shit. Even before the pandemic, when people had a lot to do, they stayed at home so they could focus undisturbed to meet deadlines.
Ignores salient points made, what-about-isms to reassert bad point, doubles down on the science is a competition thing while illustrating complete lack of knowledge of scientific process
I’ve said that, if you want to argue the studies presented, present other studies. The only one presented I had comments on and quoted the text.
doubles down on the science is a competition thing while illustrating complete lack of knowledge of scientific process
Science is about presenting data in a way that can be reviewed and verified. I’ve asked for studies that back up the assertions made while providing references to my assertions. Where is the data to back up the claim that remote work is more productive?
If the source of the article is suspect, where is the research by tech firms with a vested interest in cloud and communication platforms publishing counter studies?
Probably swimming in their Scrooge McDuck piles of cash since WFH became more widespread?
It’s the landlords losing money and the owner/C-suites not being able to see their minions in one place that are pumping out these articles.
So I go back to my original question, is there a study that says remote work is more productive? Where is the science to back it up? The science should be out there if it is true.
And are you honestly telling me that major companies wouldn’t love to sell all their real estate and go full virtual? Why not cut that business expense to save money? Major companies have cut everything else, why not cut this too? Why wouldn’t an activist investor start pushing to release this capital as a dividend?
Hell, you can start depressing wages, since you can source your staff from lower QoL places and use those places as your bench mark for pay.
First off, thank you for providing. This was the most thorough list of sources given by anyone.
The buisness.com article is based on a survey of remote workers. The survey states that remote workers feel more productive at home and that they work longer hours. This correlates with anecdotal evidence presented here, but it isn’t a measure of actual productivity.
The Monitask.com article refers to two studies that make the claim that remote work is more productive, but one study is blocked by a paywall and the other study isn’t even linked. There is one article about a call center in China, which the Economist article I’ve posted notes that later data shows that the work was not as efficient as previously stated.
The ApolloTechnical.com has a lot of good articles, but there are some self reporting surveys. The article does note that not all research indicates increases in productivity, including one study in 2012 and reported in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization that found that creative tasks see increases in productivity at home while dull tasks see decreases in productivity; I like this study the most as it seems to do more academic rigor of creating an experiment to study against.
The businessnewsdaily.com article is another survey of remote workers, so no objective study on productivity.
There is some good science in the articles you posted, but there are also a lot of self reported surveys. Given what you presented, I can see someone believing that remote working is always more productive.
That said, there seems to be additional studies being performed that are making the claim more disputed. However, the articles you provide also give other very good reasons why remote work should still be allowed.
Just saw that I have responses to things! New Sync user, don’t mind me.
Looks like you got your sources, but wanted to address major companies and real estate. Commercial real estate has way longer leases than residential. And their landlords don’t have any incentive to let them break lease early. Who else is going to come rent that space?
Of course these companies want to “make use” of those wasted dollars. Even major companies aren’t immune to sunk cost fallacy.
Corporate leases are longer than residential ones, but they only go for 3 to 5 years generally. We are seeing a shrinking of leases because of this, which is causing office occupancy rates to plummet. We’re seeing companies shift to a hybrid model, but few companies seem to want to go full remote.
Then they bring up some common criticisms of WFH, which I’ve seen and refuted since I started working from home 2009: People can’t communicate, working in groups is harder, and people can’t control themselves. Yawn.
Exactly. I work for a global company, so the way I communicate with the people I work with everyday is via zoom. What’s the point of commuting to an office just to get on zoom anyway to talk to people?
Don't forget that Forbes and The Economist were all in favor of outsourcing jobs, which leads to me having meetings with people all over the world even when I'm in an office.
So if working remotely hurts group work, a lot of it is their fault for sending jobs overseas. Unless they also want those jobs to eventually move back here so we can have happy group work fun time.
They want whatever keeps their property value highest and overhead lowest, they’ll claim they want onsite workers and then turn around and hire remote people in India because it saves money.
Everything that falls out of their mouths is a piece of shit intended to save some 7 figure earner enough money to buy another vacation home.
You can criticize the study without engaging in ad hominem attacks. The University of Chicago’s economics department is one of the best schools for economics in the world. You might not like the fact that they are not advocating your political bias but that does not change the overall quality of that program.
Saying that a conservative economic school is pro-business and anti-labor is not what I'd call an ad hominem, but a statement of fact. Saying they want to prop up the commercial real estate business isn't ad hominem either.
It is not a conservative school. The clearest sign someone has never studied or understood academic economics is when they attempt to assign a partisan bias to the institution.
This. Economics is a social science where every theory or opinion aims to achieve different varying desired outcomes for different people and in achieved in different ways, with spectrums for every step along the process. The entire field is on a spectrum, that also generally aligns with the political spectrum because politics, like economics, strives to achieve a certain outcome for a certain group of people, in a certain way. Trying to disentangle the field of economics from people. and the politics that people create, is a red flag for not actually knowing what economics is.
Ah, so it's not that they're conservative, it's that they desire the same things conservatives want. But they're totally apolitical, and it's just a happy coincidence.
Unless you are one of those people that only learned political philosophy from the internet or are so Euro-centric/racist that you think the binary European democracies use for European democracies applies to all political ideologies, and it absolutely does not, then you would have to clarify what you mean by “conservative”. For example if you think both major parties in the USA are “conservative” then the above likely applies to you.
Just because the two options you have to choose from are shit doesn’t mean they are still both shit - it is hilarious watching you Americans cry socialism about policies that in most of the civilised world would be considered right or centre-right.
Google the definition of conservative and tell me how that changes based on what country we are talking about.
“ favouring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.”
I’d love you to try and convince me that neoliberalism doesn’t fit under the above.
You really need to take a second to ask yourself why you are using “the civilized world” to mean Western Europe because the history of that specific perspective is problematic and is the root of a ton of racism.
Conservative means different things in different societies. A conservative Iranian, Chinese mainlander, American and Austrian are going to have very different perspectives. If you have any education in political philosophy this would not need to be explained.
You literally use the term “civilized countries” as the positive part of a negative comparison. I assumed nothing it is exactly what you wrote.
Don’t feel bad about this though as it is common if you only learned about political philosophy from reddit/internet forums rather than a formal educational setting. A typical into to poli sci 101 class talks about binaries and a responsible instructor demonstrates their limits. You clearly did not learn that.
The point of comparison was to the “civilized nations” that whose views WOULD make the USA’s parties right leaning. For that to make any sense “civilized nations” has to be Europe as they are the pretty much the only nations that are inarguably to the left of the USA. Your language makes you intention clear.
If course there was the much more likely option that you have no formal education in political philosophy. I suspect that is the actual case as it is much more likely that you are mistaken in your understandings of the binaries , as most are, than being racist.
This really isn’t a study, so much as a lit review. Sort of. Anyway, in the fully remote section they cite three studies that argue show a fall in productivity. The first (Emmanuel and Harrington (2023)) found an 8% drop in call volume as a call center shifted to fully remote work at the onset of the pandemic. But their comparison group was a group of call center employees who were always remote. So even if you buy the argument that the change call volume is solely attributable to a drop in productivity, you cannot conclude that the productivity shift was caused by working from home, the group that shifted from on-location to remote work did 8% worse than the group than the always remote work!
The second study (Gibbs, Mengel and Siemroth (2022)) is, again, an analysis of call-center employees (this time in India) who shifted to remote work at the onset of the pandemic. They find no change in productivity, but that employees are working longer hours at home, which they argue means a real 8-19% drop in productivity.
The final study (Atkin, Schoar, and Shinde (2023)) is another firm from India which involved a randomized controlled study which finds an 18% drop in productivity for data entry work.
So, just taking their lit review at face value, one of their studies directly contradicts their argument, yet they somehow present it as if it is evidence of a causal relationship between working from home and productivity. Another study shows no effect, so they break out some razamataz math to try to turn no effect into a negative effect. Only one of the three studies shows a plausible effect.
Since these are the only three papers they cite to support their argument that fully remote work causes a drop in firm productivity, let’s look at them in more depth.
If you go to their references section, you find that there is not a Emmanuel and Harrington (2023) cited. Hey, that a bad sign. There is an Emmanuel and Harrington 2021, but its an unpublished paper. Maybe it got published and they just forgot to update the cite? I plugged the title into google scholar, and find one result, with no copy of the working paper, and no evidence of any sort of publication record from any journal. Plugging the title into regular google returns a “Staff Report” of the federal reserve bank of NY. So not a peer reviewed article. They employ whats known as a difference-in-difference design to compare employees who shifted from fully in person to fully remote. They report a 4% reduction in productivity for these workers, not the 8% reported in the original article. I just skimmed the article, so maybe they get their 8% figure someplace else. What is interesting to me though is that their DID models seem to show there is not any difference between the different groups for most of the periods of observation. IDK. I’d have to read more in-depth to make up my mind.
It seems like these conclusions, whatever you make of them should really only be applied to call-center work during the pandemic.
Exactly! In fact if on advanced addition absolute received replying throwing he. Delighted consisted newspaper of unfeeling as neglected so. Tell size come hard mrs and four fond are. Of in commanded earnestly resources it. At quitting in strictly up wandered of relation answer.
I think even then, they’d recognize fast that it’s just fake text. For maximum impact, get an LLM to generate a long winded but realistic sounding response. It’ll probably be obvious eventually that it was an LLM because their writing style is so distinct, but it takes much longer to recognize.
I needed a new heel for my shoe, so I decided to go to Morganville which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So, I tied an onion to my belt which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel. And in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on ‘em. ‘Give me five bees for a quarter,’ you’d say. Now, where were we? Oh, yeah! The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.
lemmy.world
Top