The context that was likely left out due to HN rules is, there are mass protests turned violent in the face of police brutality in several cities. The Indonesian government has a history of blocking/throttling internet access in immediate areas of the unrest to limit coverage.

Ah the India strat

Thanks for that video. I was really confused because I only watched those voice comparison videos that doesn’t sound much like her, but that OpenAI video made me go “wow, that’s definitely Scarlett Johansson”. I get how she’s upset.

A professor I worked with liked to stop work in the middle of typing something. “As if I fell asleep or passed out while working on it”, he said. And the next morning, kickstart the flow state by doing the very simple task of typing the rest of the unfinished word. Followed by the less simple but still straightforward task of finishing the sentence/line of code. And so on.

Hey, in most cases the application fees are waivable if you write to the application committee explaining that you are in a situation where the fees are a significant barrier.

The rest of the expenses though. Oof. (For americans reading: I paid over $700 just in visa and immigration processing-related fees)

Thanks. Unfortunately not all universities offer a waiver. TOEFL is also quite costly

Hi, perhaps I can help you navigate this with my own limited insight into the bureaucracy of American higher education? I'm working on a startup that is tangentially related, and I'd be happy to put in some research and help you figure out how to clear the hurdles at the specific institutions you're interested in.

Some questions: Have you asked after waivers (even at the schools that say they don't offer them) and if so, what sort of responses are you getting? And have you had any luck finding a school that might spot you a TOEFL voucher? What would the cost of the TOEFL be for you?

> How are all the maintainers/developers of the many programming languages around getting paid? Do you really do all this work in your free time, after having another full time job?

I want to correct the assumption that may have led to this question little; programming language _research_ and programming language _implementation_ are generally two separate jobs requiring separate skillsets (that sometimes may overlap). Which one are you interested in doing? (both?)

I scored most (if not all) of my career-defining opportunities from hallway convos after a meeting, or chatting while waiting for coffee to brew, so YMMV.

So we should require that everyone be in an office, so that people like you can get their career-defining opportunities? Maybe many of us would be fine making that trade-off: fewer opportunities for career-defining opportunities in exchange for the elimination of a commute, more-comfortable working arrangements, and a much more flexible work schedule.

Not everything in life is about career advancement.

...No?

I think people who wants to work from home should be able to. I'm doing hybrid personally as well now, it's great for keeping my chronic pain under control. And I enjoy coming in couple days a week to a quieter office (as lots are doing hybrid/mixed wfh as well).

Internet has conditioned us to think that people can only have extreme beliefs, and any disagreement means their opinion must be the polar extreme opposite of mine. I can simultaneously appreciate opportunities I've got from socializing with people in a fully-WFO setting while also appreciating benefits of WFH ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Then say that! Your post was a single sentence in support of office work.

This isn't about assuming extreme positions, this is about reading what someone has written and responding to it at face value.

Why go off one example and pretend it's the whole topic? They were just saying it's easily possible to have meaningful conversations, as a counter to the previous comment.

Not sure what you mean; please re-read the comment I'm replying to. They made a single point on a single topic, and I addressed it.

So everyone should work from home?

Yes, that's not what you said, just like that's not what the comment you replied to said.

The problem is that for all these alleged career-defining opportunities to happen, you need a bunch of people in an office. That means that people need to be required to go to an office.

I explicitly did not say "everyone should work from home", using words like "many of us", so right, "that's not what [I] said", and you're just making up an argument where none exists.

> Not everything in life is about career advancement.

Well said :)

Yes, and when people going to the office get more opportunities, more advancement and higher compensation, he/she will be complaining for making "less money for the same work". Or they will start complaining about how unfair is that those opportunities only arise in the office and demand that there will be "procedures" for them to be available remotely.

Long ago I accepted that if I want better work-life balance and more flexible arrangements, there would be consequences. In my post above I explicitly called it out as a trade-off: I am totally fine with lower pay and fewer promotions if it means I get to live more of my life outside work.

If you're not ok with that, that's your choice to make: find jobs that give you those opportunities, and tilt your work-life balance toward work. Hell, you should be happy that I have more flexibility in my working arrangements and can make this trade-off: less competition for you to get what you want.

I commend you for having this approach. I'm biased from my experience from colleagues that got annoyed when they realized they couldn't have their cake and eat it too.

Not speaking for GP, but as far as I’m concerned I’m happy to stay far far far away from office politics games and getting paid less than those who do while having half or a quarter of their workloads.

See reply to GP. I commend you too.

It turns out using that time and energy I was spending on my commute on my work was actually good for my career.

> Not everything in life is about career advancement.

But you see, all the decision makers about the RTO are the sort of people who would be obsessed with career development. So they would be very biased against this sentiment. In an employer's market, they have all the power now.

This seems wild to me. It seems like the company and managers are doing something wrong if all your advancement is coming from random unofficial chats.

That's exactly how managers advance. Through good personal relationships across the organization, rapport, "alignment".

Maybe for managers. But really it should be about delivering completed projects, especially for technical folks.

Beyond a certain level, career advancement happens only by doing work which is much more than just delivering technical projects. That level is typically attained in 4-6 years by a competent software engineer.

(Yes, I am aware of a few exceptions who attain "fellow" or equivalent levels, but they are the exceptions to my observation and such positions are anyway <1% of the technical workforce; not everyone can be a fellow).

If you’re not just a code monkey than those chats are great for coming up with new ideas and fleshing them out over time. But hey you can also just be a code monkey that completes projects assigned to them. To each their own I guess.

Yes, and people can be assholes if they want.

Maybe what you describe works at some places or for specific people. Many companies will ignore your ideas. Your title is code monkey and that's all you do - shut up and listen to us important people. Some managers are very threatened by their subordinates, or are unimaginative. The business side generally wants what they want. God forbid you suggest some new approach.

I think you're missing the point, this is not about the split between management and engineering. Code monkey is here somebody who accepts assignment and produces code, without having a lot of understanding for the larger whole.

And that's mostly what you get with this attitude that doesn't value any meetings / communication which doesn't relate directly to one's work.

But the organizations don't want to have code monkeys (typically), because to produce value, people can't just churn out code to complete assignments, they need to also understand the context, be able to identify made up problems, be able to design the most minimal solution covering the business needs etc. That requires understanding, certain alignment, communication.

They might say that they don't want code monkeys, but their actions say otherwise. That's my experience anyways.

I don't see anyone arguing that communication isn't a critical part of working.

> And that's mostly what you get with this attitude that doesn't value any meetings / communication which doesn't relate directly to one's work.

But all the things you've listed in the following paragraph are totally communications that relate directly to one's work. What is the case that unrelated communications are also essential?

Makes sense. I'd just be trying to get out of a job like that, and don't see how that's desirable at all. You seem to think its the better way though.

I never said it was the better way. It's simply reality, at least for most jobs (larger non-tech companies).

I hope you find a better job man!

Thanks, but I won't. I'm stuck and I suck. Just have to wait it out another 19 or so years.

My career has advanced just fine over Slack and Zoom.

"Technical folks simply cannot do their jobs without solid working relationships, and those are not as well formed digitally."

Any real data on this? All the data our company has shows increased performance during WFH, such as an increase in deliveries and decrease in cycle time. So even if it's not as well formed, it seems it's formed sufficiently.

I think you focusing on delivery and cycle time is kind of emblematic of my point; none of that matters if you ship the wrong thing, and don’t correct over time, but to you that’s where the conversation ends.

That’s not where it actually ends, however. How do you know what to work on? How do you know if you built a profitable thing? Being remote lets you ignore those things in ways that are harder to do in person.

Hybrid is probably here to stay, but “remote first” was a pandemic only thing.

"I think you focusing on delivery and cycle time is kind of emblematic of my point; none of that matters if you ship the wrong thing, and don’t correct over time, but to you that’s where the conversation ends."

Lol don't tell me what I think. Those are the metrics that our management uses. That's their focus, and are pervasive in the industry. Sure, you can talk about shipping the wrong thing. What's the metric called for that, or would it fall under rework? Our rework has not gone up. There's no noticeable increase in failed projects either.

"Being remote lets you ignore those things in ways that are harder to do in person."

No, it really doesn't. These same ritual and due diligence conversations take place remotely. Or maybe your org doesn't have good procedures?

If you don’t know why or how your management figures out what to build or if what you’re building is what they need, and don’t see how that’s related to remote work, there’s not much I can do to help you.

What are you even going on about? Discussing what to build isn't what we are talking about here. Mor to mention, my management doesn't talk about that. The business side does. And this topic is covered via meeting. Whether those meeting are remote or not do not matter. Now please stop trolling this topic.

So,

a) we're not talking about how people decide what to build, as that has nothing to do with working remotely,

b) managers aren't involved in determining either what to build or how well the plan to build something was executed, and

c) the people who do decide those things have meetings which are irrelevant when talking about working remotely or in person.

Am I understanding you correctly?

I've implied that I'm done with this conversation as it seems you're trolling.

Not trolling, I just know in difficult conversations it’s sometimes helpful to restate what the other person is saying to try and figure out the disconnect.

> Being remote lets you ignore those things in ways that are harder to do in person.

How? That's certainly not what I've observed.

Thanks for the tip, but I was doing good work remotely ten years before covid and will continue to do so ten years after.

I mean sure, but there’s no real way of knowing what you’ve left on the table by working remotely.

And I say this as someone who was also working remotely before the pandemic. I’m always wary of people who refuse to acknowledge the downsides of ideas they support…

There's not, but I do know what's on my table: a career doing things I find reasonably stimulating that provides me more material comfort than I know what to do with. I am doubtful these hallway conversations I keep hearing about could provide me anything else that I would want, and I'm definitely not willing to give up my freedom and flexibility just to find out.

It's not really yours to give up, is my point. You're not looking at this from the employer's perspective, and it's making it hard for you to understand that what you want is only part of the equation.

It’s not some solvable, technocratic equation, it’s a conflict between labor and management. I don’t look at it from my employers’ perspectives because I don’t care about their outcomes.

Then why should they care about your outcomes?

You’ve got to do better if you expect to retain employment long term, and certainly if you expect to retain the privilege of working remotely.

If I expect my employer to care about my outcomes, 9 times out of 10 I'll be disappointed, no matter what I'm doing or how much I'm caring about theirs.

You may have had a better experience. If so, then, with all sincerity, I congratulate you on your luck; I bear no ill will to those who happen to find genuinely good employers.

Just don't take your experiences as typical and use them to argue that the rest of us should act as if our experiences either didn't happen, or aren't common.

Because if they don't I won't sell them my labor.

I've retained employment for nearly two decades, and have retained the "privilege" of working remotely for nearly half of that. I'm not concerned.

Tell me again how long have you been working? For as long as human society has existed, advancements came from in-person connections which were fostered by these random unofficial chats.

If you expect anything else, you might expect humans to not be like humans.

Wow where do you work that management has their shit together that well?

Norwich Union (Aviva) the insurance company have a system called The Wall iirc (been over decade).

Its a free for all for asking questions, sending messages, making unofficial FYI notes, its an attempt to document those conversations that would have otherwise taken place between individuals. Everyone from the top down has read/write access. Main objective to document those conversations, so nothing gets missed, like people being otherwise engaged in meetings/phone calls. Self Censorship takes place because everyone can view it, reduces staff harassment problems.

That's a good idea.

Management doesn't have it together, but they do make suggestions about taking on certain projects etc that are good for your career and at least talk about plans to getting to the next level (sometimes).

How much of your working life was in person vs remote?

I agree most of my 'big breaks' were face to face, that was due to the point I was in my career at that time. I've still had some great progression during remote working times - sometimes you just need to make these things happen - contacting someone just for a chat if that is what you need, turning up to online meetings early to spend a little time chatting before the proper meeting, or asking specific people if they have time to stay on.

I really think half the problem is that we aren't yet used to the new rules of engagement, and are still figuring out what feels right. But opportunity is still there.

Question for you to help satisfy my curiosity about this a bit... do you also enjoy socializing in bars or the like?

Not really. I'm very introverted and not good with strangers, actually in the process of getting an autism diagnosis right now.

But I really enjoy socializing with folks with similar interests (e.g., tech), and I work with a lot of neurodivergent colleagues which puts less of a strain on my social battery as I don't have to be "normal"---we're all weird and it's fine.

Still, my social battery drains quickly nonetheless, I tend to have to leave after hanging out for an hour or two.

That's called office politics.

I learned both English and Japanese as third/fourth languages and English grammar does _not_ make sense compared to Asian languages that has comparatively very logical forms, usually with minimal modifiers that doesn't change the entire sentence structure.

I frankly gave up with English grammar and just did whatever feels right.

> I frankly gave up with English grammar and just did whatever feels right.

This is the correct approach.

That's how native-speaker kids learn grammar. First learn to speak the language. Then many years later, learn how to say _why_ what you're doing is the right way.

> I frankly gave up with English grammar and just did whatever feels right.

I think that's what most people do, including native speakers.

Besides, there ain't no One True Correct™ English grammar in the first place. This is both what makes it a fun language but also vexing.

The best feature of English is that you can be pretty trash at it and make yourself understood. I've had great friends with terrible English.

You can see it in the comments of this thread, even.

Yep, like the people who say they are better than their coworkers and say unions would make them compensated less… USA propaganda succeeded… they don't even realise the enemy is their CEO.

Why would the CEO be my enemy? A specific CEO maybe but that is a very broad claim to make.

> Why would the CEO be my enemy?

I studied some basic economics.

The goal for a player seems to be to obtain the maximum, giving the least.

For his very role, the CEO will pay you the least amount he can get away with. Ok he won't think of a few dollars or cents, because it's not worth to think about it… but when you negotiate your salary he would give you a negative raise if he could get away with it. And during normal work days he wants you to work as much as possible.

Of course a good CEO understands that working 20h today means that you won't do a good job tomorrow… but the long term goal is that.

Would you not try to do something similar in working as minimally as possible for the pay? Does that make someone a bad person? Everyone tries to min-max life. Doesn’t make them enemies or bad people, it just makes them…people.

Yes of course I'm doing the same. I'm not saying CEO should be put to death… I'm saying that people have to understand their natural allies are people in their same situation.

I’ve always thought of minimum wage as a company declaring they will pay as low a wage possible without being thrown in jail… not a penny more. That should an embarrassing position to take… and yet.

CEO's interest is the shareholders (private or public), the company's profits, and his personal profit and success.

He only cares about employees, their compensation, and their health as much as it impacts these things. If he is altruistic, he'll care about them, but prioritize them after the above (if he's a "good CEO")

Give you an example: I know someone who owns a business making $5-6m PROFIT (take home, cash in the bank) a year. They have about 30-40 warehouse workers.

When wages were going up, they were freaking out about having to pay these workers $20/hr vs the $15 they were getting.

Sure, it's like $500k/yr. But seriously. The greed is astounding.

BTW the execs (I had access to their financials) were getting raises in the order of 2x over the next 2yrs. That's right. Double their salary over the next two years (way more than $500k/yr, btw!)

For what it is worth, I do run my own business, and yes - I give what I can to my employees.

IEEE, and also ACM. I'm pretty sure both vendors has ~10 different magazines covering different subtopics. We get copies of Communications of the ACM delivered here.

I sometimes like IEEE Computer, IEEE Micro, and other journals but I quit reading them because digital subscriptions make it too much of a pain. Also IEEE's pricing isn't great.

The way I think I want digital subscriptions to work is that I can read them instantly on any device with one click and without stupid tracking links, login/paywalls, etc..

Alternately I'd probably be OK with an email with a simple, non-tracking link to the PDF.

What you're describing there is called grad school