I have worked remotely since 2018 and camera-on is certainly the only way to go. Sure, large meetings or recorded sessions mine gets turned off. Cameras on for meeting where you are actually involved is an absolute necessity for trying to make the human connection.
I don’t fully understand the “I won’t turn my camera on” insistence. This is akin to someone in-office bringing a curtain into a conference room saying “don’t look at me”.
All this “smart” stuff kills me for basic appliances that no Wi-Fi should ever be needed for.
Example: I am in the process of building a custom home with the ability to purchase whatever we want - when looking at ovens I told the salesperson that I didn’t want anything that has to connect to the internet and the response was that I would need to pick out something lower end because everything “high end” has the connectivity now. Even dishwashers.
The diamond water paradox is one of the first concepts learned in an introductory Econ class; hopefully not until a “history” class.
I was an Econ professor in the past and this was quite literally the first thing I spoke about in introductory courses. This is the analogy used to describe what the science of economics is, the study of the allocation of scarce resources.
This was the second largest "money left on the table" from an IPO. Jay Ritter's document shows how much AirBNB could have picked up if they had priced their IPO appropriately.
It seems as though you read the entire article and cared enough to make a comment about it. Those are not characteristics of bad writing even if it is disagreed with.
>I would say it's a much higher bar to be hired in as a remote worker vs an existing employee moving to being remote because you already whether the employee is productive
I have to disagree - this is a common premise that you have to see that someone is productive "in person" first.
But seriously, it doesn't matter if someone is remote or in-person, you won't know how productive they actually will be until after they have been hired.
FWIW, I am an engineering manager at a fully remote org and we have had great success with hiring people and getting them productive from day 1.
I wholly like the idea and is one that I preach and do my utter best to follow.
As context, my company is 95% remote in engineering (I'm a remote manager with some IC responsibilities). Of course, there is some of that internal pressure of making sure I am able to respond to slack in a timely manner. SO, I continually stress to take the deep work breaks and do everything I can to make sure that my team is protected from meetings or other outside requests.
Some explicit things we do as a team.
- Have 3 standing meetings, M/W/F for 30 minutes each. We are fluid with these times making sure that they work for everyone and are blocked next to other commitments. We also change the context of the "standups" to incorporate planning/retros, etc
- Thursdays are explicit "no meeting days" I fight back hard against anyone who tries to put engineers on my team in a meeting on Thursday. Unfortunately, I as a manager sometimes have no choice but to accept a meeting
- Tuesdays are recommended no meeting days
- It is ok to turn off slack/email. We all have each others phone numbers and will text if it is something actually urgent, which it almost never is.
- Our team is measured by how much we hit our deadlines, which we have input into how those deadlines are set
This is one of the best and most productive work environments I have ever been in -- it would be extremely difficult for me to move back to any office, especially an open one where productivity is proxied by seat time.
> And also: when do we want to decide to use alternatives like decision trees instead -- because despite being less accurate, they can have designers who can be held legally accountable and liable, which can be more important in certain situations?
Decision trees are black box models and are highly accurate. (Think XGBoost, LightGBM, Random Forest, etc)