Hacker News Reader

> Again, the point is passing along information, whether it's done in person or online makes little difference.

But it makes a huge difference for some people like me. Information passed verbally just doesn't stick for me. For some reason it's not properly recorded in my memory and if you ask me about if half an hour later I would have forgotten 80% of what I was told.

Now give it to me in writing, and I'd probably remember it until the end of days.

Is your point that you're less likely to get information in written form when working remotely?

No, the point is that what works for one doesn’t necessarily work for someone else.

Remote working only works well for a certain type of person. If you're that person, good for you. There are few people who are self-motivated enough to work remotely. Most people need and want daily human interactions with co-workers. All the problems you dismiss as non-problems, are only non-problems for you.

Ultimately, in either case, you can't tell someone they're doing it wrong if what they're doing is working for them and they're successful.

Having worked for both remote and "butts in seats" companies, allow me to refute your rebuttal

> If your culture is already remote, or shifting towards it, then it's a non issue.

What does this even mean? How is it a non issue? You are vastly underestimating the nuance required to get from A to B, mainly, from in-person to remote capable.

> This works just as well remotely. In fact I would argue it's even more efficient, one can take advantage of super quiet places in a private video chat.

This is opinion. It works for some people, but for others, part of communication is body language and being near someone. It's actually science. These "non-verbal" communication indicators are not as well communicated through a telepresence.

> In person meetings, stand ups, team sync meetings are 90% waste of time.

Sounds like some more opinion, as well as something that can greatly vary from company to company.

> Short meetings can be performed quickly in a video call.

HA! Have you seen the sorry state of affairs that is telepresence software?

> Again, the point is passing along information, whether it's done in person or online makes little difference. In fact if it's done online, I would argue it's more efficient because is a digital trail that one can trace back

Again, sounds like you are projecting your own personal opinions as some sort of fact. The digital trail point is a separate issue, and a valid one, the rest of the point is opinion.

> If your team members fail to collaborate remotely, they will fail to do so in person. Remote has nothing to do with it.

Opinion.

> Partners and clients don't care how "vibrant" your team is.They care about how good your product is. This point makes no sense

Oh, oh yes they do. You obviously have not been in a meeting where you have one of the big 4 Telco's in your building (I have), and you are giving them a tour, and they are impressed by your "amazing work culture" (your buildings and office are just as much as "marketing" as your sales pitch -- some people seem to miss this point), then you land that multi-million dollar contract, making it all worth it.

> This is hands on SV startup mentally.

Having never worked in SV myself, this seems like again, more opinion, and varies from place to place.

> The point I'm trying to get across is this: It all depends [ on the organization structure.]

You are very right -- it most certainly, almost always, depends.

> This is opinion. It works for some people, but for others, part of communication is body language and being near someone. It's actually science. These "non-verbal" communication indicators are not as well communicated through a telepresence.

For people like myself who struggle to understand body language, when everyone else in the room "gets it", forcing people to explain in detail removes ambiguity.