The article is wrong. The 14 day limit applies only to working from a different country than the one your job is based in. Partial WFH is very much still on the table for the foreseeable future as far as we know.
This statement as quoted is false. I'm guessing it is a misinterpretation of the policy that employees may work remotely from a different country for up to 14 days per year without approval. The announcement that came out yesterday stated that this policy has been reinstated. It does not apply to domestic WFH.
20% projects (and the policy supporting them) are very much still a thing at Google. Not sure how many people actually participate in one but my perception is that it is a relatively low percentage of employees.
I don't entirely disagree, but my main gripe is that the former definition is extremely useful so it is unfortunate to have it subsumed by the concept of "shy" (for which we already have a widely-understood word), since it then becomes difficult to communicate and reason about the former. Maybe the solution is that we need yet another word to use for the former meaning, although I wonder how long will it take until such a word would yet again become co-opted to mean "shy"...
> I would say that I'm an introvert who's really good at pretending to be an extrovert for small amounts of time
In other words: an introvert. There seems to be a widespread misconception that introversion means being "shy" and not talking to people, when in reality it is more about where you draw energy from. The result is tons of people self-identifying as "extroverted introverts"[1], presumably in an attempt to signal that they are not totally devoid of social skills, when in reality introversion has nothing to do with that.
[1] When I was single I saw this surprisingly often in online dating profiles. Interestingly, for all the many people I've seen identify this way, I've never seen a single person self-identify as the opposite: an "introverted extrovert".
This x1000. You've basically described my dream lifestyle. It does seem indeed very hard to achieve without being retired, but I feel like for those making good money in tech it should be at least partially achievable, through a combination of proper money management, relocation to low cost of living area, and transitioning to freelance/consulting. Easier said than done but certainly not impossible .
> It is, however, a strong social proof for other things that matter a great deal.
> a willingness to abide by the rules and procedures of a complex organization, even when they don't make much sense or directly contribute to the core competency. It shows a willingness to submit to authority, a willingness to get often arbitrary work done on schedule with acceptable quality, and other traits and experiences that matter a great deal for becoming a functional employee in a corporate workplace.
This is one of the main theses of the book "Disciplined Minds" by Jeff Schmidt. I highly recommend it if you're interested in following this line of thought further.
I live on 80th in the UWS and there is similar construction that's been going on behind my building since I moved in last year. Luckily I'm not home during the week, but they still fire up the jackhammers at 8:00 AM sharp on Saturdays. One time I heard a guy screaming "f-you it's f--ing saturday" out his window at them for like 5 minutes straight. The hammering stopped for a brief instant, then immediately resumed, drowning him out.
Heh... What's interesting is I personally feel the opposite. I can eat thousands of calories of carbs/sugar no problem, but I fill up on fat pretty quick. I did the keto diet for about 4 months and almost never went over my daily calorie budget, basically without even trying that hard. Most days I had to remind myself to eat more because I was way under.
I wonder if this is a case for emphasizing that "one size fits all" doesn't work in dieting, either. It seems likely that satiety for various food sources might vary based on biology and lifestyle too.
My opinion, from my own experience: Sure, that definitely works. But the choice of cutting fat is kind of arbitrary. You can do the same with sugar & carbs and get basically the same result w.r.t weight loss. I think this illuminates the real underlying issue with modern diets which is not that we eat "too much of X", but rather "too much of everything, too frequently". Approaches like this work not because "fat is bad" or "carbs are bad", but because they provide a simple, concrete framework for diet choices that ends up reducing overall calorie consumption.
For those interested in learning more, I highly recommend Ryan Holiday's book The Obstacle is the Way which gives a great high-level modern take on stoicism. The classics are also obviously great too.
I'd guess the majority of them weren't initially received well. It seems it's kind of characteristic of truly good & innovative ideas that they at first seem like terrible ideas to the majority of people (as once noted by Paul Graham / Sam Altman or some other famous entrepreneur, can't remember who exactly).
Yup, that was my last company . Had a bunch of inexperienced devs getting promoted to "Senior" all the time. I think I counted once and
figured out that we had more people working there with the title Senior Software Engineer than we did regular Software Engineer's.
After one year of moderate effort I too got the promotion, with almost no pay raise. The problem of giving everyone a certain title is you basically completely dilute any meaning or status it conveys.
I soon went on to FANG and am now a regular ol' Software Engineer again. But I'd much rather be bottom rung at a top company than a "Senior" whatever at a company where it means nothing.