It is complicated at scale and over time though. Look at Saas infrastructure: How you do it as you grow constantly changes the results of any evaluation.
How often do you build in house tooling or applications that have no ongoing operating commitments?
It's upfront capital investment plus generally unpredictable maintenance vs. More predictable but maybe higher operating expenses
Your approach doesn't save any time or effort for the hiring company though. It's the in depth interviews that take up so much time.
You may not like it but this is their motivator, not being nice
This is better for sure, but if you're trying to get someone really good to leave their current job (hint: They always have a job) it's as much the time as money so it still doesn't work well
This is true for a lot of important drugs that don't have massively lucrative markets to recover their investment. This means fewer new antibiotics for global issues and more penis pills.
I suspect the economics for this only work because all drivers are contractors. The founder spent a lot of time highlighting the factors that support the contractor story but with recent changes in specifically California I'd be wary; it's becoming harder to justify the contractor narrative when the market maker controls the entire supply side, ie if they set the prices and the wages ahead of time (and it sounds like they do) it starts to look an awful lot like regular part time shift work.
I agree. My 1:1 invites explicitly frame them as an opportunity to point out where I'm failing in supporting your goals, things you want to accomplish and questions you have about anything from the trivial to the strategic.
I don't use a formal agenda but our 1:1's do produce explicit action items with one of us assigned and a due date
As a manager i would fight this approach because the 1:1's i schedule are for an exact flip of the relationship you describe. I certainly appreciate and encourage these feelings across all my teams, but unlike ICs it's my job and I'm given the time and resources to make these changes, it's not fair to expect someone to both execute well and put all the required effort into pushing for organizational improvement
I love how everyone immediately goes to "you were doing it wrong". Gee thanks. It could also be you perform at a very high level and your body is aging, you have an underlying condition that had never had a chance to fully heal, or many other nuanced reasons.
Isn't the real debate about the cause of climate change, and hence the best addressed aspects?
I would hope all true scientists can agree on what they see but still debate there underlying phenomena and this the predictive models
I built something similar called "wage clock" that ran in the system tray. The killer feature was you could set sub timers for things like going for coffee or to the bathroom. All of us 20-somethings in our first real job loved it and it was a big reason i quit my big corporate sales job and returned to school to study comp sci.
I too now think it's unhealthy to equate time so directly with rewards, but overall i have fonder memories than you i think...
Don't confuse a software product with a business model. Their own words state they've "solved" the previous human problem of fashion without figuring out a viable way to capitalize. That means they don't yet have the right product. I think they've solved an intermediate problem on the path to the actual underlying pain that people would pay for.
Agree. The unspoken tenet in my family has always been you enjoy enormous advantage; your responsibility is to leave the next generation better off than where you started.
The nerve of people wanting their life's contribution to be a net positive for those they love dearly....
Except they've worked hard to intentionally become what can be classified as a public broadcast medium. They can try and refuse service but it's unlikely they won't be compelled by the courts or legislation to provide open access. That means thru can't just live with their own rules.
Don't conflate the medium with the quality of interaction. Not on FB != hermit, that's just what Facebook wants you to believe. I prefer deep personal relationships with few over hyper connectivity. Others may want a broader, shallower network; neither is wrong just define happiness for yourself.
You don't get to have one without the other though. That same conversation with Bob at the end of the day when you talked about crappy 90's VR in movies is when you find out Bob is writing an emulation library at home for the turbo graphics console and knows everything about low level graphics. That sticks with you when 3 months later you hear in the hallway about a new visualization project that needs skillet people. This happens thousands of times over.
Keep in mind remote work doesn't mean isolated, individual developer unless it's a very small project or you're doing it wrong.
I object to the characterization in this thread of all casual coworker interaction a being social and meaningless to the work. This view is just plain wrong. I know many here will disagree and say they are on big projects with remote teams that don't socialize; if that's true and you're delivering work than I've got to believe someone behind the scenes is doing extra work to hold it together.
I agree with you, but it's unlikely to convince the other camp. How about purely selfish reasons though? There is a finite limit on what a single developer can accomplish. By definition a high performing team requires excellent communication , and you don't just shrug and say that's managements problem. Team output will dwarf anything a single rockstar could ever hope to produce. Developers should Read mythical man month about the requirements of scaling up; the challenges are not technical, they're all about communication and visibility.
People are both complex and can change though. Maybe we should give up our worst aspects as we grow and learn. Figure out your core essence and protect it; identify the accidental and be open to alternatives.
I know that as my experience has accumulated i care about a few things more and all things a lot less. O also better understand life is a spectrum of many different perspectives, versus the black or white zealot i was in my younger days...
The only thing harder than working remote is managing a remote. It requires the combination of a super disciplined high performer and counter intuitive communication strategies, both of which are rare and hard to pull off.
I don't agree. True ambition is very self centered, almost egotistic. The detractors never have as much invested as you and are largely irrelevant. You don't do it because they say you can't, you do it because they don't even exist.
I've also heard this proposed as a risk of vaping. You get hooked on nicotine, can no longer afford expensive e-juice and switch to cigarettes. I think it's too early to know if this is the case, but the complete opposite of what vaping promoters try to sell