skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
+1 On this. Find somewhere that was remote before pandemic or that shifted fully.

I've worked fully remotely for the same company for almost 6 years now. Having worked in an office before, one belief I've formed over the years is that working at a place that doesn't have remote at the core and that has staff that's remote and staff that isn't, would create a two-tier system and I'd be very afraid of trying it.

In fact for a lot of the company history, we've had an office in a location next to the founders, that people were not allowed to use as a work place. You could go there for a day here and there but not as a group and not as a regular activity. There weren't even spots for more than 5 or 6 people at the same time in there, so mostly used to receive mail. This sort of thing won't even be in the minds of a huge corporation that is only doing remote because the pandemic forced them to.

So my advice if you want to go remote, is to find a company that was either fully remote before the pandemic, or a company that has truly embraced it and shifted completely.

edit: seems like there's a bit of attention here, if you're struggling with remote or starting something and you want to exchange some war stories for fun, I'm always up to share some thoughts even though the internet is full of experts on remote nowadays. I've done it as an engineer in a company of 12, later as an engineering manager and more recently being manager of managers and we've surpassed 250 people, so I have thoughts about it from multiple angles. You can figure out how to contact me from my profile.
And one of the main reasons we care to map the brain development over lifetime is because it tends to deteriorate in old age.
Short of a contractual guarantee, you should always approach a new job with this expectation. They may say remote now. But almost all of us are subject to 'at will' employment laws and the company could absolutely change its mind later.

I've only been looking at remote jobs that also happen to have big offices or headquarters in places I'd be okay moving to, because I might use it as a plausible path to move there. My ties to the area I live in are about to end, and I'm feeling the itch to shake things up.
That's the point, whether the killers are in prison or free, everyone will die. But with the killers in freedom, people will have a decreased life expectancy and that decrease - simply on average or also taking into account the distribution - is a meaningful way to measure the impact.

But that analogy is not really good, in case of the killers you can pretty much quantify how many people died because of them and therefore you could say not releasing the killers saved two million lives. [1] In case of some additional air pollution you are not able to say who died because of it, you can only observe a change in life expectancy.

[1] But even that is only meaningful to a certain extend - if all the killers decided to only kill people seconds before they died from another reason, that two million lives saved really means two million times ten seconds saved.
Now is a good time for China and India to stop siting on their thumbs pretending they can be neutral. If you can't call this wrong and insist on withdrawal, then it's tacit support.

This goes for Germany, Austria, and Hungary too. They continue to exempt oil from the sanctions regime.
https://mobile.twitter.com/zoyashef/status/15119036765413417...
That's a pretty hard standard to hold. I've never had a company promise a particular desk to me in writing, but I trust that if they show me their nice office space and verbally tell me that's where I'll be sitting they won't put me on a folding table in the broom closet.
If you made it through the FAANG dynamic-programming circus then plenty of people on here would love to engage you at some level, including me.
> Older clients I work with in large industries don’t trust or click on any of it, and their company blue coat filters stop you if you accidentally do.

A small but significant proportion do click on any of it.
I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people are actually "influenced" by influencers. I have never trusted anyone and anything. When it comes to spend MY MONEY I do my own research, period.
> Managing your own infrastructure (with dedicated servers, so no hardware management) isn't too hard.

If you have infra skills then absolutely, it's way simpler to manage. But infra people like don't really fit in "small shops" because the price tag for one of us is (depending on the cost of living) anywhere between a quarter and half a mil total comp. And if you ever want them to take a vacation not on-call you'll need at least three. I say this against my own interest, just go with the managed services and consider it "good problems to have" when you feel the itch to hire some infra person to clean up the debt.
wonder how many millions died from cancer from radiation from all the nuclear/atomic weapon tests, and the 2 major nuclear power plant disasters (that we know of)

curious if its still a numerical net win or a lose when you take that side into account
My team was migrating 1000+ VMs from aws to gcp, mostly for cost efficiency (and adoption of k8s for even better cost)

We used kafka mirrormaker 1, with 2 ways sync (new cluster have separate topics for write that are synced to old cluster, and all topics from old cluster synced to new cluster)
For postgres failover switch to new master required about 1-2 minutes of downtime

We migrated ~80 microservices within 8 months and now our infra cost about 1/4 of what we paid to aws, completely worth the effort!
I like to joke I have type B personality with type A ambitions which is the recipe for perpetual unhappiness. When the switch is on, things move quickly, but its been getting harder and harder to find the switch. I'm in early soon to be mid-30s and I've been trying to figure out if having grand ambitions is still necessary to overcome inertia or is it something else.
While I feel for the people being fooled by recruiters I can not comprehend how come they did not make sure in their first interview that they're indeed hired for remote and it will be stated in their contract. I would never trust recruiter as they're responsible for nothing.
I'll assume you're taking off the table some of the classic ways to obtain wealth: 1) getting someone give it you, including by birth or inheritance or valuable rights conferred by some powerful entity, 2) taking it from someone, 3) getting someone to agree that something you already own is worth a lot of money and cashing out before they change their mind, 4) saving and investing over a very long time, and 5) participating in creating and building something that didn't exist and that other people find valuable and want to pay for, usually after convincing people to invest in your idea and taking a lot of risk to build it.

If all of those are off the table, this is a guaranteed way to get rich over the medium term: 1) earn a degree from a prestigious university or college in something very hard, typically math, computer science, or math economics (you will typically need at least some masters work on your CV), 2) have or develop a personality that can get you into a trading operation or ancillary field, 3) go work there, 4) don't spend money in anything but rent, groceries, gym, family, healthcare, etc., and 5) if you are good at your job you will have earned enough money in 10 years to never have to work again if you maintain a "quietly affluent" lifestyle. Unfortunately, there is a certain aspect of natural talent in this career (how your brain is already wired). My friend's son followed this path at a "Public Ivy" institution and in his mid-20s he was turning down $300-450,000 per year offers (salary plus base case bonus) to work at hedge funds in order to finish his masters and be selective about his employer next year. When he goes there, in good years he could get bonuses of $1-2mm or more.

This will probably offend you, but the fact that you asked this question at all and the attitude expressed in your post indicates that you are much more likely to waste investment capital on seminars and training materials sold by "get rich quick" scamsters. Perhaps you think there is some secret move or opportunity, and if it exists then the person who knows about it is willing to spill the tea on a public forum.

Do you want a few more actionable pieces of advice? Be a humble person, kind, and show gratitude. No one ever did this alone, so take that attitude and connect with mentors who are successful in your field and in life. Help other people. More often or not, one of those seeds you plant today turns out to be the thing that helps you much later.
I feel for the OP. I have a more general question. Let's say your contract states that you are remote. What if the company changes their mind say 12 months down the road, are there any recourse? As far as I know, there isn't much you can do about it other than perhaps a X-month severance package or go back to the office.
I do auto updates in Linux. Because they just work. And take < 2 minutes. And do not need a reboot.

Regardless if I manage a Mac or not, the time it takes to apply the update is the same.
What would it have meant to go all in? The reasons for not going all in, were certainly not because of the environmental movements.

Also if we extrapolate from the nuclear accidents that we had, with the current number of power plants we had a major incident every 20-30 years or so. If we would have wanted to supply all our power from nuclear it would have meant at least a tripling of reactors (more like 5 times or so, given the developing world), so given the rate of incidents we would have a major incident every 10 years at least. Considering that they tend to render large areas completely uninhabitable in 50 years significant areas on all continents would be uninhabitable.

The shame is that we haven't gone all in on renewables and storage much earlier.
How would that have helped OP - who wasted a lot of time interviewing and didn't have anything to sign?
I think that’s a symptom too. The root cause seems to be the notion that children must be “protected from the truth” so they can lead a carefree youth.

Then kids turn 18 and the mask drops and — at least for me — the number of WTFs is never ending. I’m 46yro and I still don’t understand why I was told so many lies… except of course I do understand: adults don’t want to explain their shittyness to a bunch of kids.

Just imagine if our collective parents had to deal with a generational outcry demanding they stop fucking around, stop stealing from our future, stop lying, etc.

Society as we know it would end, necessarily replaced by something more just.

Can’t have that! The status quo it is then. FML; YMMV
FAANG recruiters will lie with a straight face. Not surprised at all by this.
https://dcaulfield.com

I took a look of inspiration from a couple of other sites I saw around. I wanted it to be simple and straight to the point. I know nobody reads it, but it's just a place for me to write my thoughts and hopefully use it as a reference for future employment.
> Would a universal basic income lead to inflation?

Immediately adopting a non-trivial UBI, alongside any reasonable deficit-neutral funding stream, with no other accompanying policy changes, would be a transfer of net income from those currently reviewing more to those currently receiving less; it would lead to some inflation in things with greater proportional demand among the net beneficiaries and some deflation among things in greater demand among those seeing lower income after taxes and transfers as a direct result of the policy before considering any effect the change in spending patterns had on domestic velocity of money. As it would probably also slightly increase domestic velocity (increasing after taxes and transfers income across the board), one would probably expect some additional overall inflation on top of the inflation/deflation from demand shifts.

The question of whether it would lead to levels of inflation, overall or in any subsector, large enough to make it a net undesirable policy is hard to answer because:

(1) it involves subjective questions of priorities,

(2) except under the most extreme sets of priorities, it involves complex factual questions whose actual answers are very different for different formulations of the exact UBI and funding policy, and where the actual answers even given the precise policy inputs, even assuming we could isolate all other future situation changes that confound the issue, are very uncertain given the very large degree of uncertainty in predictive economic models (modern economics has some fair ideas of the direction of first order effects of some changes, and seems to in some areas provide generally useful quantitative guidance on small variations well within the historical range of experience, but beyond that... there are very good reasons to gently phase in new policies, continuously assess, and be prepared to alter course.)
To be fair, many of the most expansively marketed companies pretty much exist for the sake of marketing, it seems.
Sure, but more solutions are feasible if power is cheap and plentiful.
> 'It's not that these companies love throwing their money away. Maybe there's just something they know that you don't?'

Those companies that have a Sign-up for our email and get 10% off your first order pop-up, you mean?

Those companies paying for clicks to 404 pages or 'this item is out of stock', etc?

Those companies that ask you if you have a discount coupon just before you enter your card details for something you are already buying?

I get your point but I wouldn't assume big companies always know what the are doing when it comes to advertising. Sometimes they employ lots of people and some of those people don't actually have a clue what they are doing.
I think its worth calling out that there are different types of monorepos.

For example, I've worked in a monorepo that was one giant binary, but I've also worked in a monorepo that was a single repo that contained 4 ish independent services ( but were all in a single git repo ).
Sure, and young men in Russia with Ukrainian ancestry can get conscripted.
A true prodigy then.
Personally I've felt the impact of age (mid 40's). Learning new stuff isn't too difficult, but remembering things has become more problematic as I've gotten older. I encounter the "tip of my tongue" problem more frequently than I used to.

With recreation I play video games a lot and I feel a slight reduction in my reaction speed but otherwise I feel no other impact from my age. (Except maybe vision, but luckily that is easily corrected).
Having been down the route of repos for every service I would always choose monorepo in the future. I could see separate repos for libraries. There is just too much overhead trying to manage multiple repos. With a single repo it's possible to build a package that represents all of your software vs being forced to version everything. Tasks almost always touch multiple services unless you are so big you have a team per service.
Channel fit is a huge thing, if you are trying to sell a large ticket item like web servers via banners you are wasting your money, if you are trying to sell dog beds with banner ads on a pet forum you will be very profitable.
Focusing on remote-only, remote-first, remote-from-scratch companies is how I ended up at my current, and literally best company I've ever worked for, gig. Obviously the pool of such companies is smaller than in-person and they tend to have more competition for roles, but my unscientific guess is that pool is growing larger.

Bonus points for those companies because they didn't have to "figure it out" or change upper management corporate culture to go remote.
Society runs on example making, sadly. For all the good or ill that entails.

Someone deserves to be named and shamed, with the caveat of, there must be an agreement to actually accept the results of further digging.

If the recruiter said yes to a remote position that wasn't, the fault is rightly on the recruiter. If the recruiter was told remote was fine only for eventual reneg when ink was being put to paper... That is absolutely a reputation hit the client of said recruiter needs to take.

Fixing a fault requires identification, localization & characterization, and remediation.

This fault has been identified, but not localized and characterized.

Ergo, if remediation is the goal, naming and shaming absolutely needs to happen.

And everyone involved, up to the company execs making the decision themselves should understand the importance of this dynamic unless they've all been playing games to get to where they are, in which case, the callout is doubly needed.
Yes this seems like a total crapshoot. I have an application that always lives on my second monitor, and it’s seemingly completely random if it will start there or not. Just like this for a decade!
Windows is made as a product to be sold, that's means that any part of it is designed to maximize Microsoft and it's partners revenue, not for users. That's why anything is not integrated, incoherent etc.

And that's why GNU/Linux itself is far less integrated than classic desktops (Xerox, LispM), after Xerox starting from IBM, desktops was devastated to the point that from end-users desktops, flexible power tools in users hand are evolved into rigid and limited tools that try to conquer users absurdly mimicking physical desktops/classic office works (see General Magick UIs as a good example) instead of pushing a new far superior model.

The common ground is that most users do not want/fear changes, so they are easy conquered by those who sell miracles without paradigm changes, of course they regularly fails but since they captured users it's too late for them to escape. People who know something better for a reason or another suffer from the actual state of things, but that's is...

A social change is needed to change actual IT, it's not just a matter of code.
The thing you are proposing sounds like absolute customization, unless I horribly misunderstand. "Take it from there with scripts" means not only is it fully customized, but you don't even have a trusted vendor to provide the scripts, which sounds like a nightmare to me.
Sounds like a bunch of excellent reasons why such companies should be named.

Companies are huge and they can hurt many people at scale. Individuals are small, relatively powerless and easy to manipulate. Especially if they don't organise themselves. Spreading information is the first step of getting organised.
We should have included far more “experts” than just doctors and epidemiologists. We should have had “experts” from business, arts, education, you name it at the table. The myopic fixation on Covid was the result of only giving a voice to exactly one form of expert: the doomsday epidemiologist.
Absolutely. I still subconsciously reach for NordVPN because of how good internet historian is at plugging it. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiccjfD_3pHAp-f3aNlf94BXW...
I don't care for org mode but this could be huge for people that do.

I find being able to open + edit notes quickly helps my thought process more, so hopefully this can help with that.
So we've escalated from "top paying tech company decided I can't work remote" to the civil rights movement... this thread is an interesting study in internet discourse
Propaganda aside, there's a lot to talk about technology related with the current conflict. Warfare is changing before our eyes. Does anyone now of where this topic is being discussed at a high level (ie hackernews level of discussion)?
Shopify is an excellent company to work for. Congratulations!
And if you could do it the time after that you'd probably make it the first thing you say when you speak to anyone from the actual company
Nuclear power is clean at the plant but the fuel has a very dirty production pipeline. Further, plants are estimated to have a carbon impact around the same or worse than natural gas because their supply chain is so expensive. Instead of the carbon coming from burning the fuel, it comes from the enormous amount of work that goes into keeping a nuclear power plant running.

HNers love to shout about the environmental impact of semiconductor production for solar panels and mining for batteries and even permanent magnets used in electric motors. But apparently reactor fuel comes out of the ground and is refined based on ...wishful thinking?

It's all moot. Nuclear power is not being deployed by utilities because it is one of the most expensive forms of energy generation. With almost a century of enormous subsidization and research, it has only increased in cost. Wind and solar have plummeted in cost. Wind is currently the cheapest, with solar hot on its tail. Solar continues to fall at around 10% a year.

Last year in the US alone, and only accounting for grid-scale projects, wind and solar have replaced nuclear at a 6:1 ratio. When you account for commercial and residential solar and wind, it's an even higher ratio.

Solar cells cost $76 per watt in the seventies and now it costs thirty cents per watt. That's a 250 fold reduction.

Wind has gone from 55 cents per kwhr in the eighties, to 5 cents today.

Nuclear? More expensive than it was in the eighties.

With HVDC transmission technology seeing wider and wider use, and well as battery technology plunging in cost: everyone in the industry and government sector considers "what energy source do we go forward with" as solved.

It's not just cheaper: it doesn't have any of the numerous concerns nuclear does. Solar panels can be recycled (or simply resold for applications where the 10-20% reduced capacity doesn't matter, ie where there's plenty of roof/land available relative to energy needs), and the biggest problem with wind turbines has been figuring out how to recycle the turbine blades when they're EOL, something that is now solved. GE is turning blades into concrete, and Vestas has figured out how to recycle blades into like-new fiberglass.

Nobody sees nuclear as a viable path forward except the nuclear industry.
While you're not necessarily wrong, the distinction lies in how many people see you organically.

If I get 100 organic impressions/day, and then spend $N to get 500/day, I'm speeding the process up, and nearly guaranteeing to get in front of people who would never see me organically.

*Note: I'm largely not talking about paid search ads. Those are definitely an area where you can end up competing with yourself. Sorry to anyone who I replied to earlier, and wasn't clear enough on this with.
You seem to have been comfortable throwing your hat in the ring of political discussions on this topic in the past:

> There is no open door policy with NATO. Russia and the Soviet union have tried to join NATO at least a few times publicly and were rejected every time. What's the point of NATO again?

> I've been seeing a pretty big wave of Nazi apologists on the left lately. It feels like now that everyone knows we've been arming Nazis in Ukraine they moved from denying it to saying Nazis weren't all that bad.

> Imo, Putin is more analogous to GW Bush with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Can you make a claim for how Putin is worse than even Bush in this regard?
I've literally had recruiters email me job descriptions with "remote" in the email header and the document inside says "hybrid".

None of these people actually read the crap they shovel onward.
> The basic premise is simple: company X spends money on ads, then turns those ads off and finds that the revenue does not change. Then the conclusion is made that ads don't work. On the surface, it seems like sound logic

It is sound logic.

OP repeatedly clarifies that not all ad spend is bad, that it's just for his specific case.
I'm this close to naming my next company FAANG.