Ask HN: Remote workers, tell us how you got started - <AUTHOR> If you've been working remote (in any capacity) please tell us your story: How did you get the position you're in?, What advice would you give to others?, What's your favorite story about your remote-working experience?<p>I'm currently out of work and considering getting a remote gig (be it as a freelancer, contractor, or plain old employee) so I'm especially interested in hearing what you have to say. <comment><USER4> I've been a remote freelancer on and off for about 12 years now.

In a lot of cases the clients I've had where I work remotely, were clients that either A) aren't tech businesses and typically don't have developers working on-site anyhow, B) I worked on-site with them for a while, and then either moved or just stopped coming into their office or C) were referred to me from another remote client.

Communication is the biggest part of success or failure when working remotely. Slacking off on communication is a surefire way to bring about misunderstandings and potential conflict. Always clarify everything you discuss, never leave anything up to assumptions or guesswork. Bug the hell out of the other people you're depending on (client, coworkers etc), send them regular update emails even if they didn't ask for it. I've managed a lot of remote workers. If it takes you more than 24hrs to respond to an important email, or you leave me hanging past a milestone with no update, or you miss scheduled conference calls, can't jump on chat in an emergency etc - <USER2> doesn't matter how good you are, you'll get fired. If you want to work remote, you need to be proactive about communicating, and very clear every time.

As a remote worker, personally my biggest problems have always been getting a good routine and keeping up productivity. If you're the type of person who is distracted easily (like me), remote work can be challenging from home. I have all kinds of productivity tricks - site blockers, pomodoro timers, certain music, etc. The biggest thing to me is getting out of the house once a day at least, shuffling around my environment I find motivational. I'll go to a coffee shop for a few hours each day and its often the most productive few hours of that day. Getting a shared office / desk space, co-working with friends, working from the road, library etc are also great ways to change things up and put yourself in work-mode.

Hope thats useful advice. Good luck!

<comment><USER5> This is great advice, especially about getting out of the house and having a routine. I am on my second remote position and having a daily routine is essential to not falling into productivity hell.

I am renting an office in a coworking space so I can have a place to "go to work" rather than working from home. It adds a routine, it gives me separation between work and home, and it's nice to have human contact over the course of the day.

<comment><USER4> Yea I used to rent an office for a few years. I learned some important things - particularly making sure that you have the right office environment for your productivity. I unfortunately rented a space before the 'coworking' revolution and got kind of trapped in an office with non-tech guys much older than me constantly bugging about IT advice, a rent barter agreement when my finances couldn't swing the overhead that was hard to break (I basically became an indentured web-servant for a print design agency), and eventually a realization that I wasn't even being productive in the office. Been a skeptic about offices ever since, but definitely curious that a proper coworking space might be different..

<comment><USER6> Productivity is one of the reasons I want to make the jump to freelancing.

I currently have a full time job, and enjoy the periods where I am left to get on with my work, but all to often the non-technical users will not read error messages, and ask me stupid questions to "fix their excel". It makes it impossible to work on certain things, like learning a front end framework when you are being bugged with trivial tasks like this every half hour. (The fact we are still using excel as a data import solution bugs me as well, as I have complained about the lack of reliability for a long time now).

So freelancing would hopefully allow me to do the sort of work I want to do. I know there is a whole load of other stuff I will need to manage, but it must be better than fixing formatting issues in excel.

<comment><USER7> If you are a freelancer, the lame basic PC questions are still coming your way. Maybe not from collegues, but now from clients. There are always people who think you are there to help with there PC questions. Also if the hired you 2 years ago for their website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> In my early 20s I did a bunch of random freelancing. $2000 for a website, $200 to modify some graphics, $450 for a research project, $250 for sales copy etc.

In 2011 I interviewed Ramit Sethi and wrote a huge article about his system for $1 million+ product launches:

[http://www.problogger.net/archives/2012/01/26/ramit-sethi- ex...](http://www.problogger.net/archives/2012/01/26/ramit-sethi-exposed-how- he-earns-millions-blogging/)

After that, Ramit reached out to me to help w/ his business. I had shown 1: that I do a lot of work to be the best (see the above blog post), 2: we had matching communication styles, 3: he trusted me bc I wasn't some dude that was trying to shake him down for cash, and almost less important, 4: I had the technical skills for what he wanted me to do. Ramit became a 5 figure client.

Since then I've followed the same model. 1: provide a huge amount of value for free, 2: propose recurring work to the client, 3: do a really really good job. My average client provides about $20,000 work per year.

On pricing: for writing work I charge between $50 and $150 per hour, but I prefer to just set a day rate. I became a lawyer a few months ago and I'm leveraging other strategies to bill $550+ per hour. So depending on your skill-set, you can do pretty well.

If anyone wants more info, you are welcome to email me: email@example.com

</comment><comment><USER9> I have been working remotely for 6 years now. I started off like you unemployed after a layoff, but during the start of the financial crisis.

I looked at employers around my area, craigslist, job sites, everywhere. Emails/called to see if they needed any extra help. Started with small contracts lasting a few weeks. Eventually building up a client list to have some stable employment.

It wasn't easy, but love it everyday. I always hated the office politics, annoying drawn out meetings, strict timeframes (work at this time, lunch during this time, etc). Just a lot more flexibility in life.

My advice is stay updated with technology and have quick response times to clients.

<comment><USER10> I like your advice. Thanks :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I met a girl the same week I started at my job in 2007. We were in San Antonio, TX and she was my upstairs neighbor and we started dating a month or two later, then got engaged after about a year and a half. This girl (now my wife) is a Captain in the US Army. When her time at this duty station was up, the Army moved us to Colorado. I told my employer (a big cloud hosting provider based in Texas) that I would be moving but that I wished to keep working remote somehow, if it were possible. As it happened, my team was short-handed and so my boss worked out a way for me to stay on as a contractor. A few months later, the company decided that they wanted to keep me so they converted me back to a full-time employee and I became the first (or maybe the second?) remote employee at my company. I recently left to work remotely for a SFO-based startup but I can tell you that my old employer has hundreds of remote workers now.

</comment><comment><USER12> I did this a little over 10 years ago, from Brazil.

* How I got the job

I was working for a normal web shop as a developer, going to the office everyday. This company had an US customer and I was the one who built his entire system. After some misunderstanding between the customer and the company's owner, the customer wanted me to work for him directly from home, and this was discussed with the owner, my boss at the time. My boss agreed and I started working for this customer from home, and continued to work at the web shop for some time until he introduced me to another US company who wanted to hire me for a full time remote position, which I accepted and I still work for this company to this day. A couple years ago I was relocated to live close to the HQ so I could be in the office :)

* What advice I'd give to others

\- Discipline/Productivity

You have to be very disciplined in order to be able to work remotely. You need to pay attention to your time and make sure you work the hours you are getting paid. You may work less hours, but in a worst case scenario, you end up working much more than you are supposed to.

\- Communication

Your coworkers can't see you. You boss can't see you. Make sure you keep in touch and reply to emails in a timely manner. This is key to show that you are committed to the job.

\- Working from home

If you can, avoid working from home or try not to make the same mistakes I did, below. The first two months I was working from home full time were great! Freedom! But then it almost drove me crazy. I had nobody to talk to, I'd barely leave the apartment. It was a small apartment, so I kept my workstation in my bedroom... don't do it. Ever. At some point I caught myself working 12 to 16 hours a day. When that happened I wasn't sure if I was working from home or living at work. (And I wasn't getting paid by the hour). I spoke with my boss about this issue and the company agreed to rent a small place for me to work from, since there was no public space or this concept of shared office that I could use to work from.

* My favorite story

Well, I went from a one guy working alone from home to building a team, becoming a manager, hiring more people, relocating to the US and becoming a CTO. And it all started with that first remote job :)

Sorry about the long post. I hope something here is useful for you.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER13> I've been remote-only for 5 years. The company I worked for decided that remote work would be the way of the future and it'd save a ton of costs, so we did a trial where a portion of the workforce would work from home each week until everyone went remote at the end of the year.

I don't really have a favorite story: remote working is not that interesting. It did have a profound affect on my life, though: since I didn't need to work at a specific office, I decided that I wanted to move across the country. Rather than a job opportunity deciding where I lived, I got to spend a few months weighing the pros and cons of various places based on other factors. After 6 months, I moved 3,000 miles away and it was one of the best decisions of my life.

Of course, I probably couldn't have done that if I had any outside, major, long-term commitments (spouse, children, family I had to stay within driving distance of, a house, etc.).

If you're in a similar situation, the first bit of advice I can give is that you're going to find that "nine-to-five" eventually becomes "whenever I feel like working, as long as I get things done and stay in communication with the rest of the team". This means working nights or weekends, but it also means being able to knock off and do something fun in the middle of the day. It's easy to slip into a situation where you're working 9pm-5am or working Thursday-Tuesday one week and then a completely different schedule the next, even if you have a personal schedule (it's easy to ignore it).

If you need a routine to be productive, you need to create one for yourself, and I would suggest doing it immediately—don't wait until you're all over the place in terms of time. If you already have outside commitments (like making sure kids get to school on time or having to walk a dog) you'll have a leg up, but otherwise I'd suggest joining user groups or community sports or something that has set schedules you have to keep.

The second bit of advice I can give is to use a phone/video chat as much as possible. It's very easy to slip into emailing/texting/IMing/ticketing all the time, but so much is lost in the written word and you can find yourself implying things you didn't mean to imply or inferring the wrong things from people's messages. I've found you can diffuse most sticky situations with a simple call: when in doubt, don't keep emailing, don't stew, call the person. Even a run-of-the-mill problem that might take a half dozen emails back-and- forth can usually be resolved with a simple 5 minute phone call.

</comment><comment><USER14> I started out on the many contract working portals, got a few really crappy jobs to get some ratings in my profile and keep increasing my rate. I kept everything at arms length until I found people I didn't mind working with for longer periods of time, at which point I de-listed from the portals. I continued some of these contract arrangements, and got some great referrals out of them.

I was a little lucky in that one of the initial contracts was for PHP development, but they wanted an iOS dev so badly (and I had proved myself by that point), that they paid for an iPod touch and Apple Developer license in exchange for me working at the same PHP hourly rate. So basically I got paid to learn the new skill while adding a portfolio item.

Don't waste a lot of time on the contract work portals. The pay is horrible, the jobs are crappy, the people are crazy, and it sucks up a lot of time. If you don't have an existing network though, it'll be a way to get started. The people you find here which you can actually stand, you can use to build up your network of referrals. Offer discounts if they give you a chance to get paid to learn a new skill (but obviously be reasonable - don't get in over your head).

Time management and Communication are key for success. Client management, legal terminology, budgeting, etc are also great things to understand.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm from the Philippines and we are changing the world remotely.

I started as a trainee for Junior Software Engineer level working with a startup in Silicon Valley.

The best thing about it is that in just 3 months, I was able to learn HTML and CSS, Bootstrap, jQuery/JqueryUI, PHP, MySQL, OOP in PHP, MVC using CodeIgniter, Ajax, Ruby on Rails, Setting up Linux Server from Scractch, SVN, Git, Agile Project Management and a lot more. My mentor is really good teacher and at the same time "to struggle is to learn".

After two years, we have 9 more team members, an office. We have built our own LMS to train more people remotely. We have bootcamps running in MV and Seattle. We also have consulting projects. We are working with other entreprenuers and helping them with their startups.

Gmail, ASANA, Skype and screen sharing tools make the world flat for us. Gives us the feeling that we are working in one place.

The best advise that I could give to others will be 3 things:

1\. Have focus and Love your work. If you don't love what you are doing remotely, chances are you will not focus. 2\. Company is about the people not the revenue. This is very critical in a remote setup, you must value your teammates as if they are your family. 3\. "What Gets Measured Gets Managed" \- Peter Drucker. We have daily reports, we measure hours spent and assigned story points to each task.

</comment><comment><USER16> I became a remote worker through a mix of bad luck, bad management, and a startup that wasn't going well. Of course at the time, I thought it was terrible; it turned out to be incredibly liberating and probably one the best things that's happened to me, professionally.

I was a software consultant for about a year and it was all networking - <USER3> all, that's how business gets done in the real world. I never had a time where I had too little work to do. My 'hack' for the whole thing was working in a coworking space, which is IMO the best ~$300/mo you can ever spend in a city that has one. I was lucky enough to have been working in one for more than a year and half before I started working for contract work, but I think you could easily do it in less time than that. When I started looking for work, everyone knew somebody; I never went outside of my space to find any work. It was incredibly convenient and really just worked out easily.

I always advise coders who are looking for freedom, a work environment change, or are newly unemployed to try a coworking space while they figure things out. You'll make a bunch of friends in a low-stress environment, meet entrepreneurs, and make great connections in the community that will get you work. It has worked well for those I know who have tried it - the secret is finding the right space. A socially-oriented space with as few walls as possible is best. You get used to the noise. Take long coffee breaks, go to lunch with people, go to happy hours and meetups. If you let it be known that you're looking for work and others know your skills, the jobs will come to you.

</comment><comment><USER17> I started when I was 18. I had a friend who telecommuted for most of his work, but had to go into the office occasionally and I was interested in a similar set up.

I started on VWorker (Rent-a-coder at the time) and found a cool gig that lasted about a year doing mainly research projects for a web design and marketing company. That job fell through, though, and I was in normal kid-jobs for a while (retail, gas station worker, even a couple of stints doing factory work).

Then, I landed a job building a website remotely for a friend-of-a-friend's business. That worked but it was just a one-off gig, not long-term.

Then I sort of accidentally fell into remote work doing some development on a desktop app, but again it was a short-term gig.

From there it was about 6 years before I found full-time remote work again (I'm 28 now and have been with the same company for about 7 months and it seems to be going strong).

My advice is to never give up, and never give in to the pressure that you will get from family and friends. If you want to live the work-from-wherever lifestyle then you have to commit, and the sad truth is that you will probably have to go hungry sometimes unless you get lucky and land a job on the night shift of a gas station (it's not too bad until a hooker bleeds on you, yeah that happened to me).

Remote working, for me, takes a tremendous amount of discipline and it's really a lot of work. But there are great benefits in that I get more time with my family and to do the things that I like. But it also means that I have to be an excellent communicator and that I sometimes have to work when I normally wouldn't want to (a crisis in Europe doesn't care that it's only 3am in the US).

</comment><comment><USER18> I have been working remotely (as a senior dev, software architect, now a CTO) for more than a decade now.

I worked for a racing-to-IPO software dev company in upstate NY that collapsed in 2002, and the connections from that spun out into subcontracting, initially for various local clients (and thus already mostly remote, sometimes on-site). Then I moved to Michigan, but kept doing the same work. Then I moved the France; ditto (included one trip to launch a project on-site, living in a hotel for 10 days... ugh).

It was tricky, working from so far away (esp. when working with a team of developers who were on-site), so I worked solo for a few years (my wife published a well-reviewed first novel, which helped a lot); we had a kid in 2009. In late 2010 I found a dev job with a Cambridge, UK-based startup, here on HN. Now I'm the CTO. All of the developers here are remote.

My in-laws are in Malaysia, so I'm working (and parenting; we have two daughters now) in Kuala Lumpur all this month.

I like this setup; it's sometimes really hard (mixing in parenting is the hard part, really).

More details/advice available if there are questions, when I have time tonight.

</comment><comment><USER19> I've been a US-based remote worker for close to 3 years now.

I started doing contracting work in Rails while I worked full time in .NET (while going onsite everyday). I also networked a lot within the local Ruby community. When I was ready to jump to Rails full time, a friend through the community was staffing up an early stage startup with remote devs spread across the city. This was a good way to dip my toes into remote work while still maintaining local connections.

After a year of that, I jumped to a larger company to join their remote team of Rails developers (currently about 10 of us are remote). Now I'm pretty adjusted to the remote lifestyle and it would be very hard to let go of it since the impact to family life is so positive.

My advice would be to do as many others have done and start with remote contracting to see how it works. Then you can either convert to full time or find another full time role later if you need benefits. However, if you can remain as a contractor I would generally advise people to do that if your financial situation allows for it.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've been doing remote work for a little over a year now. My story goes like this:

1) Saved money and quit job for big vacation -- 2) came home but wasn't ready for job so started contracting onsite -- 3) eventually introduced to a remote/part time contract -- 4) started freelancing half time while working on my own projects half time.

Working remotely is terrific! No commute means an extra 2 hours in my day. I split my locations between home, coffee shops, and client offices (when they have offices) for variety.

For anyone who wants to go this route, I recommend building a solid network. The best contracts I've gotten were through former co-workers and former clients. Another route I've used are recruiters/agencies (for subcontracting work). It pays almost as well and there's less of a hassle with marketing and invoicing. I've also tried using the Hacker News Freelancer threads but the response rate usually knocks down my confidence a lot.

</comment><comment><USER21> Been working from home full time for over six years now.

A couple of warnings:

1\. A danger of working from home is that work is always just a few steps away. I've lost many hours of my social and family life because I had a thought running through my brain about a problem I was working on and just sat down for "a minute" to look at it. :)

2\. If you work for a US company as an employee, the IRS tax credits for home office expenses are extremely unfavorable. Anything you want to count toward work has to be kept completely separate from home. If you store household junk in your office, an auditor can make the case the office isn't deductible. If you have a business internet connection, but it is also used in the rest of the house, you can't deduct the whole thing, only a fraction. When I tried to deduct the expense of building out my home office, it didn't work out to any sort of noticeable impact on my taxes. :/

Advice:

* Have a schedule and let people know when you are breaking away from it.

* Ensure friends and family know that when you are "at work", they should treat it just the same as if you were out of the house at an office. Make sure they don't feel it is acceptable to just come into your office and interrupt and that you might not be able to just take off on a whim.

* Have a pull mechanism for notifying co-workers of your schedule. People can get irked about lots of e-mails that you are going out for an extended lunch, etc. So set up a calendar or website where people can visit to see if you are available. Using the "Away/Busy" functionality of your IM client helps too.

* Have a pull mechanism for notifying co-workers of your work progress. Make sure you keep your issue management system up to date with what you are working on and lots of checkpoints along the way. A weekly status page similar to a blog might also help. Basically, provide your co-workers with an easy way to see where you are and what you are working on whenever they might need to without being barraged with e-mails.

</comment><comment><USER22> Not exactly full time remote work, but i believe i can get into one if wanted and approach is nevertheless the same.

I sort of got into part time work via odesk, in addition to a full time day job. Initially the motivation was money, but very soon i realized multiple other aspects of it i.e. i used to work for a large MNC back then as a day job with very long dev cycles and organized work schedules. I learned the skill to work under pressure of a day or two or night and quickly deliver things that JUST WORK or being able to learn some thing needed very fast. Also i got a chance to broaden my skill set a lot by working on any project that interested me. So i still continue to do that on and off. This also provided me a chance to work with several open source projects (vlc, dnrd, kannel, netsnmp) and still make money. So i continue to do it still for all of the above reasons.

How i got into it in the first place? Took tests and scored well in areas i claimed skills in, charged a lot less initially, under promised and over deliverd to earn very good feedback, started with small jobs. Once i got a client satisfied with small jobs, they came back with bigger ones latter. Gradually increased rates and maintained an online profile i.e. public domain code written by one's self among other things. During all this, i even had an option to work full time dedicated to some body for a long time with good money. Just couldn't find enough time i.e. didn't feel like leaving existing job and go in.

With remote work, you get to manage your own schedule. But it is harder to be organized and you need more effort to justify time spent achieving a goal vs when sitting in an office.

The challenge in latter parts of life (when you have young kids) is to be able to find enough time to work when you are physically active i.e. sitting late night on a sofa after kids being asleep with laptop doesn't work very well.

Forgot to mention that this whole effort sort of reduced the fear of being jobless since one becomes more confident about your possible prospects of work whether local full time or remote. For this reason every one should work this way at least for some time in life IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER23> I've done a few years on, a few years off, and a few years on. I prefer remote by far.

Other than a few odd contracts, my real beginning in remote work was when I worked at one place for a long time, became indispensable, and explained that I had to move away. They had little option but to allow me to work remotely. After that succeeded for many years, I had my experience and things became easier for the next time ... and onward.

I agree with everyone's else's comments here on the challenges and benefits, but would emphasize very clearly that _it 's not for everyone_.

</comment><comment><USER24> Networking, networking, networking. The secret is to know people. The best jobs aren't found in the normal job boards but from connections. I started programming (self taught) while moonlighting. I eventually asked my network (or people i had met that were already freelancing) to keep me informed if any extra opportunities arose. Eventually something did and i quit my job for a 6 month gig working mostly from home. I eventually found one project after the next until my current work which is more long term stable and also work from home (or anywherw)

</comment><comment><USER25> I first started at a small web shop that was quite flexible. There were a few of us who more and more starting working at home, but came to the office the same 1 or 2 days each week, to work face to face and go to lunch...

Fast forward a few years, and knowing that I could work effectively as a remote worker.

I co-founded a small company with a guy in a larger city. We ended up setting up an office in that larger city, but I never moved. Travel as needed, but it wasn't that much. Then got acquired. The acquiring company has kept me on contract since then, as a remote worker.

</comment><comment><USER26> My Story - I was doing freelancing stuff back in college years from my hostel room, got hooked to it and kept on doing without doing/taking any job offer. It is been 8-9 years now and it is been a good ride albeit with many ups and downs. Working from home has its advantages as you have all the freedom of thought but it do some serious damage to your social and communication skills and can make you uni-dimensional.

</comment><comment><USER27> About 12 years ago I decided I didn't want to live in the system. I started freelancing. Doing web design work for churches. Slowly I built other websites of my own after my dad encouraged me to. Then this turned into actual 6 figure businesses and I haven't looked back. It hasn't always been easy but by far it's the best thing I ever did with my life.

</comment><comment><USER28> Ukraine. 5 years, Java. 9 month remote now. Been with a company for a year, fell in love and decided to move to another location:) Offered to switch to remote.

Advice: * Transparency(what you're doing, when it will be ready, when you're online, etc) * Discipline(isolate yourself from interruptions and keep commitments from the above)

</comment><comment><USER29> Position: Solution Architect, full time, remote.

Story: Ex-employer wanted me back, but were closing local office. I said ok, but I'm not moving.

Advice: If possible, don't be the only person doing remote work. That doesn't work so well.

</comment><comment><USER30> I work remotely for one company for a year and a half. I found my current employer in a bar on a tropical island partly by luck, partly by my desire to speak about my work with random people.

</comment><comment><USER31> Here's a tip everyone will understand: email rocks but transmits emotional tone like two cans and a string. As soon as you detect an edge, as painful as it is, take out the phone.

</comment><comment><USER32> Been a remote worker for the same company in two different positions for the past 5 years.

Not a developer, just IT support here. I had been contract-to-hire working for a hedge fund for most of 2007. I'd been let go (not hired) based on reasons that I feel were more cultural than based on my performance. Had I been a little wiser and realized that I needed to work harder than everyone else (lack of degree) to prove myself I'd still have that job.

Anyway, I was extremely demoralized and spent the better part of 2008 unemployed. I was burnt out from working long weeks with overtime and didn't even bother to look for a job the first four months. All of my time was spent bettering myself (biking, reading) and relaxing -- I had a big pile of money I was sitting on so it was okay.

I finally started to look for a job in the second half of the year, but I'm extremely picky and didn't see any companies that I was interested in working for. I spent some of this time as a bike messenger but hated being treated like shit by everyone -- still, I think this was a necessary motivator to get serious about my job search.

By November I was going broke. I finally found a couple of things worth applying for. I got the interview call for the job I'm in now when I had $9 left to my name and no prospect of further money coming in -- no joke.

It was a bit serendipitous. Like ssafejava said in their comment "it turned out to be incredibly liberating and probably one the best things that's happened to me, professionally." At the hedge fund I had to constantly look busy even if I didn't really have anything to do. Appearances were incredibly important and being young in my career, it was something I bungled badly. I was also extremely bad at keeping my coworkers from dumping their work on me in the office. That's something much harder to do remotely.

Working remotely, all of my work is judged on its own merits. I can manage my time appropriately with minimal interference from others. I've consistently been one of the highest-performing employees here. My company was even contacted by a major newswire to do a story about remote work and they sent someone to my house to interview me. The story never ran though :(. I don't work any overtime ever. Work-life balance is ideal.

It's been a great ride, but I'd like to go back to working in an office now that I'm a bit wiser -- I would like regular interaction with people again; IRC doesn't always cut it. A mix of office/remote would be best for me I think.

There is a downside to remote work though. I know for a fact that a fair number of my bosses/coworkers are doing drugs on the job. I'm not going to make any judgments about marijuana but we do have some meth users. Management doesn't want to know anything about it, but the performance of some of these people is pretty bad. If I worked for a better company this wouldn't be an issue.

</comment><comment><USER33> I live in a smallish city (pop. 40k) in Southern Oregon where I've been working remotely from for the last ~6 years.

I'm a front-end web developer by trade and a single father with two young kids. My family has lived in this area for a decade and I want my children to be able to grow up around them, so I am not open to relocation. In 2006, I was working for one of the only major employers in the city that could really use an in-house developer, but really didn't enjoy the work or the environment. I wanted to find a new opportunity, but there just weren't many other options, so I ended up working there for two years. In 2008, I found an ad on the San Francisco craigslist job board that sounded perfect for me. Heavy HTML/CSS work, some JavaScript, and a product that interested me much more than my current employer. They didn't mention anything about remote work (it wasn't advertised much then) but I figured it might be worth a shot, and sent them my resume and a cover-letter. Two days later, the manager of the web department called me for an interview, and after about 20 minutes of both general information exchange and specific questions related to the work I would be doing, I was offered the position. Phone interview for ~20 minutes and I had a job. I loved it. I worked for that company for 4 years until, last year, they had to downsize and laid off 90% of the web team, as well as many others. I was incredibly disappointed, but happy to have had such an excellent employer for so long. I found out in my subsequent job search that my previous interview process was a very rare occurrence indeed. It was incredibly difficult to find remote front-end work that didn't entail knowledge of technologies that I was too unfamiliar with to be marketable. I did finally find an another position, this time with a company based in New York. Though it's not really what I had before, I'm happy that I get to code again.

That's my story, the short version anyway.

I will say that remote work really isn't for everyone. You have to be very disciplined and self-regulatory. I personally am content most days with only my own company and my kids when they get out of school. But if you are well- suited to remote working, it can be amazing. I have a very comfortable home office with everything I need to stay creative and focused. When I was working in an office previously, I had a shared desk in a room with no exterior windows. Now I have 3 exterior windows looking out at a beautiful Southern Oregon horizon -- trees, mountains, etc. It makes a world of difference.

If you're considering working remotely, I'd suggest a few things right off the top of my head.

1) Personal upkeep is still important. Working from home means potentially fewer opportunities to get exercise. Make sure you take regular breaks and take short walks throughout the day. Also, make sure you have healthy snacks to tide you over during the day. I find that it's much more tempting to overeat when you work in the same place you store all of your food. I personally enjoy baby carrots and celery sticks.

2) Maintain contact with other humans. Grab a drink with your friends, join a meetup group, or befriend interesting people at coffee shops. It's easy to become out of touch when your only human contact are those living in your house and the occasional text/video chats with your co-workers.

3) Set your hours and keep them For the most part, my employers have just expected me to deliver my work on time. Even so, I still wake up at 8:00 every morning, make my cup of coffee, then get right to work. I take a short break at 10:00, 12:00 and 2:00. I try to stop working around 6-7:00.

4) Communicate well The adage, "Out of sight, out of mind" is very true -- when your employer/client/co-workers don't know what you're doing or when you're doing it, it can reflect poorly on you, even if you're actually working diligently. Ensure everyone is aware what is happening and when, and promptly respond to any emails, even if it's just a confirmation that you got the message.

That's all I've got for now. Feel free to let me know if you have any other questions!</comment>


Tweet is cheap - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jgc.org/2010/10/tweet-is-cheap.html

<comment><USER2> This reminds me of the excellent point made by Andrew Mason (founder of Groupon) in his talk at Startup School: the easier it is for people to lend their "support" to a cause [1], the less meaningful their participation. If signing an online petition takes a single click, a million "signatures" might mean less than 10 hand-written letters to your congressperson.

1\. Obviously, donating money or doing something tangible is different, but I'm speaking of things like signing petitions, swapping out your profile pic, etc.

<comment><USER3> That's why I never tap out an "RIP" comment or forum post. It's insincere to do that then flip back to whatever else you're doing on your computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _A tweet or retweet of a social cause may help spread the news, but it takes just as much effort as retweeting a LOLcat._

Twitter is inhomogeneous. I pay attention to retweets from people I follow, because the people I follow don't retweet LOLcats. (And the day one of them does is the day I unfollow them.)

Not all retweets are created equal.

</comment><comment><USER5> On the flip side, this tweet and the action from it raised almost $15,000 for breast cancer in less than 24 hours: <http://favstar.fm/users/Mike_FTW/status/27827936119>

28 people matched the 10c donation, and there was $8,000 of adhoc donations inspired by the action. See: <http://favstar.fm/users/Mike_FTW/status/27901780152>

<comment><USER6> I doubt someone committing to donate $x for every retweet validates Twitter as an activism tool. It's just a well meaning PR stunt that uses Twitter instead of any number of on/offline tools.

A real test would be something like the protests in Iran. I remember wondering why the regime doesn't just block Twitter, like they do for other sites. Apparently it wasn't worth the bother, the impact was more felt in the Western hyposphere than Iran. Personally what really concerned me was the State Dept asking Twitter to reschedule downtime for this. I'd hope they have somewhat better sources.

<comment><USER5> Yes, I'm not claiming this was any great revolutionary activism - but it was action beyond "Western self-congratulation" as John writes about in the linked post.

People took out their wallets, and paid. See if you can find the 28 people who matched. It's not easy - they're not getting any PR. This was someone who on a whim decided to attempt to raise money for a charity through the Twitter medium, and he gained a lot of support. The trigger was favs, not RTs - I'd argue it's not a PR stunt.

I do share your cynicism about the Iran situation, but I think Twitter can be used as an effective tool around smaller issues as demonstrated.

What if in the future there are 2 billion twitter users instead of 170 million? Do you think there will generally be higher awareness of global issues? Before you can act on something you need to be aware of it right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In other words the conversion rate from tweeting to activism is too low.

<comment><USER8> I'd be careful there: optimizing for activism doesn't optimize for social welfare, it just optimizes for the moral satisfaction of activists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with the post here. To me, there is a sense of complete hollowness in almost everything that I see fostered on Twitter. It's so easy to tweet that there is no commitment to anything most of the time. But Twitter has just started what will probably have a long future of product development. Twitter has fought the plague of twitspam and will maybe surprise us with a more sophisticated version of tweets if they take the $200M they are rumored to be raising.

</comment><comment><USER10> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/20/science-i...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/20/science- is-vital-result)

"Somewhere in the thick of these successes, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a sly piece in the New Yorker saying that Twitter couldn't start a revolution. I think that most would agree that the Science Is Vital campaign proved him wrong."

<comment><USER11> _I think that most would agree that the Science Is Vital campaign proved him wrong._

So the achievement of the "Science is Vital" campaign was to deliver a petition to the UK Government asking them not to cut science funding, which later wound up being cut by less than somebody predicted at some point?

And this is isomorphic to a "revolution" how? Call me when there's a gay pride parade in Tehran.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You have to crawl before you can walk. Weak ties can turn into strong ties; cheap affiliations can grow into durable ones. Once you're self-identified with a cause via something cheap and easy like Twitter, various cognitive/behavioral effects _will_ draw you further in, over time. So give it time.</comment>


The Battle Against Emoji - <AUTHOR> http://usevim.com/2012/08/01/emoji/

<comment><AUTHOR> See also <http://code.google.com/p/iterm2/issues/detail?id=2062> (linked in the Use Vim article).</comment>


A123 wants to mass produce li-ion batteries in USA, creating 14,000 jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/a123-systems-battery-plants-usa-doe-loan.php

<comment><USER2> _"... A123 expects the combined plants ... would ... create over 14,000 jobs."_

.

<http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html>

 _Economists have been at war with the make-work bias for centuries. The 19th- century economist Frederic Bastiat ridiculed the equation of prosperity with jobs as "Sisyphism," after the mythological fully employed Greek who was eternally condemned to roll a boulder up a hill.

In the eyes of the public, he wrote, "effort itself constitutes and measures wealth. To progress is to increase the ratio of effort to result. Its ideal may be represented by the toil of Sisyphus, at once barren and eternal." For the economist, by contrast, wealth "increases proportionately to the increase in the ratio of result to effort. Absolute perfection, whose archetype is God, consists [of] a situation in which no effort at all yields infinite results."_</comment>


VeriGames - <AUTHOR> http://verigames.com/ <comment><USER2> And ?

<comment><AUTHOR> "Darpa has set up a new gaming site, called Verigames, that it says will help eliminate vulnerabilities in commercial off-the-shelf software the U.S. military, government and other organizations use, marking an interesting move that the Pentagon's research wing is turning to the crowd to solve the problems of private enterprise."

[http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/12/gaming-national- secu...](http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/12/gaming-national-security/)</comment></comment>


Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32802-7/fulltext <comment><USER2> I think that the United States is getting better about dealing with mental health, but we still have a long way to go. This is a little soap-boxy and anecdotal, and I apologize if it's inappropriate here.

If I hadn't gotten a prescription for Prozac I probably would have killed myself by now. And I definitely would have destroyed my marriage and most of my important friendships. That's not an over-dramatization, it's the honest truth just based on the direction my life was heading without them.

If you can't make your own neurotransmitters, store bought are fine. I'm not writing this to say "RARGH YOU MUST USE THESE DRUGS", but I absolutely am writing it to say "hey, this worked for me and got me out of a really dark and bad place". If you are reading this from a dark and bad place, please know that you're not alone. You have a lot of options, and I promise that if you take that first step, things can get better.

<comment><USER3> >If I hadn't gotten a prescription for Prozac I probably would have killed myself by now.

The majority of people with depression just get better of their own accord, for no obvious reason. The NNT for most antidepressants is ~7, meaning you need to give them to about seven patients for one patient to see a clinically- significant improvement.

The evidence suggests that there's no significant relationship between SSRI use and suicide risk except for young people, for whom SSRIs may actually _increase_ the risk of suicidal behaviours and self-harm.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353604/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3353604/)

>If you can't make your own neurotransmitters, store bought are fine.

There is no evidence whatsoever that people with depression are "deficient" in neurotransmitters. We don't really understand the mechanism of action of any antidepressant. Plenty of drugs that have no effect whatsoever on serotonin are equally effective as SSRIs.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471964/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471964/)

Antidepressants can be useful for some patients, but they aren't miracle drugs - they aren't even particularly good drugs. If you're depressed then you should certainly consider pharmacological treatment, but you should regard it as only one tool among many. Talking therapy is equally effective and the combination of drugs and talk therapy is more effective than either alone. You might need to try several different drugs before you find one that works for you and has tolerable side-effects, especially if you have been depressed for some time or have comorbid conditions. If your depressive symptoms are relatively mild, you should probably look at lifestyle interventions like diet, exercise, sleep hygiene and self-help before considering drug treatment.

[https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90](https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg90)

<comment><USER4> I agree with all of this, and I can't help but ask: when did we start ignoring people's environment and their circumstances? I have tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt (my monthly payment is basically a mortgage payment) and I'm not particularly satisfied at work. Is it any wonder I find it impossible to get out of bed? Now, I try to be careful because, sure, perhaps the depression was already there and is just making my life complicated, but that seems less likely. I KNOW I'm not happy at work; I KNOW my debt burden makes me feel trapped and helpless. Look at Harlow's monkeys. Turns out putting creatures in helpless, depressing environments makes them feel helpless and depressed. If seeing your friend get blown up by a roadside bomb can give you PTSD, couldn't falling wages, no social safety net, stressful news media, crushing debt, and poor job mobility make you depressed?

<comment><USER5> We're not ignoring their environment. But unfortunately, most of the time drugs are quicker and easier for the prescribers, and therefore cheaper and more available for the patient, than extended psychotherapy, etc.

If the underlying problem is a psychosocial stressor, the meds won't fix that, though they might help you control the symptoms long enough that they give you the opportunity/resilience to address the stressor. And sometimes, while maybe not ideal, just controlling the symptoms is enough even for the long term.

<comment><USER6> "We" absolutely are ignoring their environment in the USA at least. People cannot even access healthcare here without additional, significant financial stress and burden. My entire family and the strong majority of my region and a general majority overall oppose the policies and systems that would give someone like me a life and future. Even seeing how it's gone for me my family refuses to support social systems and offer help to those in need. It's "stealing my money" to them and ruined our relationships seeing how selfish they are turning their back on me AND society.

I know the causes of my issues, there are at a minimum mitigations available but I can't BUY them because everything here is a business and competition and someone else took me out of the race by taking lots of money to end my capacity to compete (poor medical intervention) and I was left holding all the additional baggage with no help. I have friends who suffered catastrophes living in countries who don't think social systems are evil, and they had the tools to heal as much as possible and improve their lives and be able to contribute to the whole again. I wasn't afforded that opportunity and it's been a constant downhill slide.

Pardon the tone and it is not directed at you, it just infuriates me that American society ignores such important things and once someone is not able to WIN in the Thunderdome they are cast aside and/or expected to live with little to nothing and even more needs, while it continues focusing on pushing what are in my view largely ineffective, but very profitable "interventions". I find the predilection for painting over damage in this country over restoring/shoring up someone's foundation to be maddening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >"We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression."

Wikipedia defines treatment resistant depression as "cases of major depressive disorder that do not respond adequately to appropriate courses of at least two antidepressants."

Maybe I'm unfamiliar with study methodology, but doesn't this undermine the study's conclusion? It's essentially stating that forms of deppresesion that respond well to antidepressants respond well to antidepressants.

<comment><USER8> SSRIs are generally indicated for what's called mild/moderate depression, the most common form, not for the serious conditions that you highlighted.

There were some older meta-studies that called into question their general efficacy vs. placebo even for mild/moderate depression but this new meta-study (with the additional previously unpublished data from their initial approval trials) looks like it has finally settled the matter.

Reading this paper I'm amazed at the increased efficacy of some of the newer SSRI's despite not having a novel mechanism of action. This is similar to how effective some of the newer statins are at lowering LDL cholesterol despite the drug class being around for decades.

edit: It looks like I'm a bit out-of-date in my knowledge but the general point still stands. DSM V has a definition of 'major depressive disorder' which seems to have replaced the old mild/moderate categorization and this study looked at all anti-depressants that treat this type of depression, not just SSRIs.

<comment><USER9> I am obviously confused, as usual. I'm not used to reading these studies.

I'm looking at the study. I'm looking at the #3 graph under Tables and Functions Tab.

It says amitriptyline is the best drug? Isn't that an older drug, or am I misreading the chart?

<comment><USER10> "Best" is a complicated concept. Yes, amitriptyline has the greatest efficacy, i.e. response rate in a clinical setting. It may still have poor effectiveness (how well it works in the real world) because it belongs to a class of medications which, if you use them, you have to exclude many types of common foods from your diet. It also has less safety margins in terms of overdosing than many modern alternatives.

And then there's also the odd fact that earlier trials of antidepressants show better effect than recent ones -- even for the same treatment and all else held equal. We don't know why.

<comment><USER11> What foods should I avoid? I'm been taking Amitriptaline for 8 years now for pain management and wasn't given any advise on substances to avoid.

Although I'm on another Anti-Depressant, I certainly notices a positive effect from Amitriptaline that outweigh the bad effects.

<comment><USER12> Basically, the foods you need to avoid are any that might cause constipation, because Amitriptyline kind of does that for you already. The parent post was possibly confusing Amitriptyline with a different drug.

It is very weird to be mixing two different antidepressants. Depending on what your other antidepressant is, it could be dangerous. Were your two medications prescribed by the same doctor, and if not, have the two doctors talked to each other? A very simplistic view is that some antidepressants cause the body to make more serotonin, and others prevent the body from destroying serotonin as quickly. Doing one is fine, but doing both at the same time can lead to serotonin syndrome.

Amitriptyline does have higher risk from overdose than SSRIs, but has _much_ gentler withdrawal symptoms.

<comment><USER5> Being on more than one antidepressant is not unusual, and can even sometimes be optimal. Even ones acting on the same neurotransmitter often target different receptors and hence different symptoms. More often it's because doctors are better at adding drugs rather than taking away ones prescribed by other doctors "just in case."

Serotonin syndrome can be an issue with all kinds of things (most people aren't warned about being on a SSRI and having cough syrup for example), but is not very common in practice, and because it coincides with a change/increase in medication, often sorted out quickly, even if it's characterized as a "side effect" or "tolerability" problem and not actually recognized for what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A professional I know in the field (who repudiates drugs for CBT, and so is probably biassed, but still...) says that the lack of clarity over how an antagonist and a suppressant can both be claimed to operate _on the same underlying problem_ and have adherents, points to bad understanding of what actually causes the problem.

<comment><USER2> I basically agree with your friend, but I'm pro-drugs for pepole who find them helpful. I very strongly suspect that the underlying "problem", like with cancer, is actually an enormous variety of problems that cluster into vaguely similar symptom groups. I am absolutely not an expert here, this is a layperson's opinion, but it's really hard to imagine that there's just one specific cause that we're treating. I think that's why different drug classes vary so wildly in effectiveness from person to person, there's a ton of underlying confounding variables that we simply don't understand.

But what we do know is that anti-depressants can be a powerful tool for helping people who aren't responsive to other types of treatment. Even if it takes some effort to figure out which one is the best fit for the underlying disorder, that's better than nothing.

<comment><USER13> Yes, but we need professionals to be more overt we are groping in the dark I think.

The recent news about why ketamine works is a very specific aha moment, they showed a focussed impact on a brain functional element which seems to re-stim negative ideation and so blocking it relieves a cycle and then permits some kind of reset. Layman's analogies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The problem with studies of antidepressants is that they're almost all based on short-term, fixed-length treatment courses. After all, you can't do a double blind trial that lasts years on end; it would be unethical to give someone a placebo for that long, when antidepressants are believed to work better. Yet (AFAIK) people who go on antidepressants typically stay on them for years, so the studies are reviewing a fairly artificial use case. It's like the handful of controlled trials that attempt to compare programming languages, which by necessity ask participants to solve short, fixed programming exercises, even though that bears little resemblance to the process of real software development.

In the case of antidepressants - on one hand, there are some reasons to expect short-term interventions to be the _best_ -case scenario in terms of evaluating benefit, such as the greater risk of side effects with long-term use, and drug tolerance effects. On the other hand, I suspect (but don't have data to prove) that _placebos_ are much less effective in the long term. People think the placebo effect is in part a reaction to the social experience of interacting with a doctor, getting personal attention and concern for whatever condition is supposedly being treated. To the extent this is true, the novelty of the experience is probably a large factor, and over the long term you'd expect a reversion to the mean. So even if antidepressants are less effective in the long term than the short term, they might be _more_ compelling as a treatment option, because the alternative (placebo) loses even more of its effectiveness.

Edit: Another factor is that the effects of reduced depression may take a long time to be fully apparent. Depression tends to work in feedback loops: as an oversimplified example, you feel bad about yourself, so you lose motivation to take care of your life, so you start neglecting essential tasks, the consequences of which make you feel even worse about yourself. And lifting yourself out of depression is the same thing in reverse. So if an antidepressant has the effect of reducing your _susceptibility_ to depression - i.e. under the same life circumstances, you wouldn't lose quite as much motivation, or see things quite as darkly - then even a small change might tip the balance and let you stay at equilibrium in a more functional state of mind. But before you can reach that equilibrium, you have to go through a long process of getting your life back in order and regaining self-confidence.

<comment><USER15> The feedback loop is definitely a major component. It is why I've frequently entertained the thought of doing drugs. Simply because I feel a need for something to help me get started down the right path. Exercise, eat better, see friends, actually complete stuff properly at work etc.

Depression has a tendency to put you in a state where you are just barely holding on to life and doing anything extra each day to improve your condition seems like an insurmountable obstacle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Reading through the paper it seems like all the statistics are presented as Odds Raios vs placebo. But I couldn't find the actual efficacy of placebo. Did I miss it or does someone know?

Something being twice as effective as a placebo is great when the placebo effect helps 30% of patients, not so much when it's 3%

<comment><USER17> placebo rates would be something in the 15-40% remission rate range, in small RCTs. it varies more than you would think from one trial to another. antidepressant efficacy would be something like 20-45%. recovery rates are usually higher in smaller trials, and lower in bigger trials, partly because people get more high-touch service in smaller academic studies

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Key bit:

"In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19–1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51–0·84)."

<comment><USER19> Also significant, the next sentence,

"For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43–0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates."

It appears that agomelatine[1] and vortioxetine[2] are effective and well- tolerated. Good to know.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agomelatine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agomelatine) : "...avoids the weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and severe withdrawal associated with the most commonly used classes of antidepressants..."

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortioxetine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortioxetine) : "...Incidence of sexual dysfunction is higher in patients taking vortioxetine than in people taking placebos but appears to be lower than in people taking most other antidepressants..."

<comment><USER20> I didn't read the paper but going off your comment and the parent - _escitalopram_ was in both lists, whereas _vortioxetine_ wasn't. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escitalopram](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escitalopram)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This analysis look at effects over 8 weeks. The first four weeks on antidepressants you're feeling terrible due to onset side effects (on top of your depression). Once that settles, you feel better. But there is no way to tell if you feel objectively better than before the medication started.

<comment><USER5> Statistically, rating scales typically used in these studies have been validated as showing effect, and clinical interviews can pick up a lot of things. That said, it's normally hard for you to be able to look back eight weeks and subjectively compare how you feel then and now. Usually it's not the person being treated, but those around them (family etc.), who notice the improvements first.

<comment><USER21> I think you mean objectively not subjectively.

In any case, looking back that 8 weeks and comparing to now, _after you've just been through 4 weeks of hell_, you'll report that you're feeling a lot better, even if you've only returned to the same level you were before starting the meds.

Are there studies that use family/etc as the basis for their data? That would be a lot more valuable, as long as they also include a control.

The studies also need to look a lot longer than 8-12 weeks, partly due to the onset side effects, but also as a lot of depression is caused by a stress event that passes and resolves in a few months. It is interesting that a placebo has a positive effect (not as large as the meds); I wonder if they measured the effect of no treatment at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> PSA: The first thing to realize is that psychiatrists, and regular practitioners, have no clue what will work for you.

In my case, it took 8+ years of trying, giving up, and trying again. E.g., Prozac didn't affect me at all, but the doctor never suggested increasing the initial dose. Paxil didn't work, Lexapro kinda worked, and now on the maximum dose of Effexor.

The biggest difference makers were the doctors perfectly willing to help me find a solution. Keep trying to find one like this, and don't give up.

<comment><USER23> This applies to everything in life. Just because an expert tells you it'll work, doesn't mean it will. Balance the possible negative effects against the possible gains, and once you have learned how it affects yourself, make your own decision.

(Unless trying something creates a condition that cannot be reverted, e.g. death)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > meta-analysis

I knew a lot of other grad students, myself included, who would throw anything with meta-analysis in the introduction in the trash. You cannot deal with controls across completely different studies in meaningful ways.

I'm also hesitant about anything that tries to claim things definitively without question. Science is about continually questioning your axioms. Without doubt[1] there is no progress.

As someone who has been on various anti-depressants, I will say that some of them "worked" .. but the side effects were quite high. _Working_ only lasted the first few weeks with several different SSRIs. Eventually the side effects ended up being worse than the treatment.

I found the most effective thing for me was simply a really good therapist. She did try to recommend drugs to me again after I had quit, but she did respect my wishes to not be on them. I feel that having someone who really showed me my options and truly helped examine negative thinking patterns helped a lot more than the drugs ever did.

That being said, I know people who say they'd be in serious trouble or dead without SSRIs. It's a tough line to talk about. I personally would rather not ever be on them again. Dulling the pain for me also meant dulling life.

There are trade offs and we need to talk about them and have full discussions on the consequences of mind alternating drugs. When things are written into pure absolutes, it is a means of killing real discussion and dialogue.

[1]: [https://khanism.org/science/doubt/](https://khanism.org/science/doubt/)

<comment><USER25> Hopefully you and those other grad students will have learned more by the time you finish your degree. A proper meta analysis does consider the differences in controls across studies, and can be extremely useful in understanding why different studies got different results and identify bad studies. Not only do they help gain a better understanding of results, but they help find ways to better design future studies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was worried as to the source of this study and the people who are claiming this "puts to rest the controversy of antidepressant drugs".

It's all psychologists who naturally benefit greatly from a public perception that medication is effective. If I had seen quotes from psychologists saying "This is better than therapy - I'm stopping therapy and giving them drugs" then I would be on the bandwagon with the rest.

</comment><comment><USER27> Horrible side effects, no tests for diagnosis, no actual cures (have you heard of these drugs actually curing depression? No. Once you get on them you are basically on them for life...)...

I think this "Science" of psychiatry has a long ways to go to actually get repeatable, scientifically proven results.

<comment><USER28> Yes, cures happen all the time. I'm an anecdote, but I was cured of depression using venlafaxine. Talk therapy was used at various times but it was not effective. I no longer take venlafaxine and I am not depressed. I will say that getting "off" of venlafaxine is troublesome and must be pursued gradually and slowly because the withdrawal is severe. Once I was cured it took about 9 months to go drug free.

<comment><USER29> I'm on Venlafaxine (300mg/day). Previously I tried Amitriptyline, and Citalopram, both of which did not suit me, so I pulled myself off them... each time the depression and anxiety returned.

Although I am _fairly_ happy on Venlafaxine (it stopped me killing myself, so that's a plus), I'd like to get off it at some point as the side affects are quite annoying. Can I ask you how you feel you were 'cured' and are there any resources I can look at? Thanks.

<comment><USER28> I felt that I was not depressed anymore and I started working with my psychiatrist to reduce dosage until I was on the minimum dose. Then I stopped when I was feeling particularly good and kept a bottle of 5-HTP on hand. I'm not sure if that was necessary or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So it should probably be noted that given these are powerful psychotropic drugs so it's difficult to control for them with a placebo and we don't really know their longitudinal effects. Also proper diet, exercise, yoga, or meditation can all help with mood and depression but you can't patent that shit. This isn't to say the drugs have no value but the bar to use them should be high.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't think that researches like this make sense at all. Each depression is unique in it's pathogenesis, there are no drugs that work for everyone. For example, a depression caused by a chronic desease or the one with deep roots in your childhood - a true research needs to evaluate all 21 drugs in each situation.

</comment><comment><USER32> Authors receive consulting fees from big pharma including Merck Sharp & Dohme, LB Pharma, and Pfizer

</comment><comment><USER32> 96 out of 522 trials identified as low risk of bias (18%)

<comment><USER32> Is this not an insanely low bar? How can we take this paper seriously? We are talking about brain alchemy and more than 80% of the trials under consideration have a moderate to high risk of bias?!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> As another person who is on antidepressants, and tried going off them for a while: well, duh. Yeah, I know, anecdotes aren't data, and I'm glad this is being verified by more reliable statistical methods, but this is not news to the many of us who might be dead or worse if someone hadn't said "you are sick --go see a doctor" and if that doctor hadn't said "you need medication--let's see if this works".

Without antidepressants, my best case scenario is being an unemployed grad- school drop-out. With anti-depressants... well, it's _amazing_ what you can do when you actually have enough neurotransmitters in your brain!

<comment><USER34> > it's amazing what you can do when you actually have enough neurotransmitters > in your brain

Anything except having an orgasm, in my case.

<comment><USER29> Seconded. They don't actually warn you about the emotional impact of not being able to orgasm, and the added stresses it can add to a relationship. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To those struggling with the terminology, this site helped me a bit. I wasn't familiar with Odds Ratios (OR). And I'm still confused, with a headache.

[https://www.students4bestevidence.net/a-beginners-guide- to-i...](https://www.students4bestevidence.net/a-beginners-guide-to- interpreting-odds-ratios-confidence-intervals-and-p-values-the-nuts-and- bolts-20-minute-tutorial/)

I would love to have someone explain this study in a simple way, with simple percentages.

For example, what is the efficacy of, say Prozac, compared to placebo?

"In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89–2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16–1·63) for reboxetine."

This says all antidepressants work between what percentage?

And in another post, someone mentioned the newer antidepressants were better that the older ones. What percentage better?

(And yes--I need to brush up on my statistics. I've taken a few of these drugs. I used to know how to read a simple study, and stopped because the results were so depressing. I am throughly confused with this study, and the charts. Then again, I'm not feeling great.)

</comment><comment><USER35> This is consistent with my understanding, but:

\- how serious are the side effects?

\- how well would harmless placebo pills work in their place?

I currently believe that there needs to be a safe, placebo-like option for people without severe illnesses. For those who are severe (and can tolerate side effects as serious as suicidality), it still seems to be a good idea to prescribe them.

<comment><USER36> "placebo-like option"

How would that work? Do placebos work even if people know they're placebos? Could doctors just start prescribing a placebo called Fauxzac and it would work some of the time?

<comment><USER14> > Do placebos work even if people know they're placebos?

Sometimes, yes! See: [https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work- even-kn...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-know- placebo-201607079926)

But they're probably more effective if you don't know.</comment></comment></comment>


Would you use a Mac mini as your development machine? - <AUTHOR> http://antoniocangiano.com/2010/06/17/would-you-use-a-mac-mini-as-your-development-machine/ <comment><USER2> Just yesterday, I ordered a new Mac mini (2.66-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; 2x2GB 1066 MHz DDR3 SDRAM; 500GB SATA-HDD) to replace my older Mac mini as main development machine.</comment>


"I was fired from my internship for proposing a more flexible dress code" - <AUTHOR> http://www.askamanager.org/2016/06/i-was-fired-from-my-internship-for-writing-a-proposal-for-a-more-flexible-dress-code.html <comment><USER2> It's sad to see that this is turning into millennial-bashing, both from the disclaimer the author had to insert at the top and the first few comments here on HN. The interns learned a valuable lesson about the way the world works: there are people who both possess authority and value customs like placing particular styles of cloth on your feet; and if you decide to work for such people and don't show them the proper deference, you might get fired. Sometimes, you are in a financial and/or life situation where you have to shut up and take it. But it's asinine to trumpet this as millennial entitlement. It's millennials asking perfectly reasonable questions about why certain things are the way they are. Some of these questions are about trivial things, like an innocuous dress code. Other questions are about incredibly meaningful things, like how forcing women to wear heels is a product of patriarchal culture and can drive women out of particular careers (disclaimer: I have no idea whether that was the case here). If your only response to an office custom being questioned is to tout your authority and sneer at the insolence of the youth these days, it's clearly not the youth that believe they're entitled.

<comment><USER3> According to the original letter, the writer and other interns _did_ ask their individual managers, and were told no, without repercussion. Their response was to band together and create a petition to 'argue' their point. The petition, not their discussions with the manager, got them fired.

Taking collective action to try and overturn your manager's decision to enforce pre-existing and clear company rules, is pretty entitled. To do that when you're an unpaid intern, suggests a high degree of entitlement to me.

Whether that justifies millennial bashing, or whether all generations are like that at 18, is another matter.

<comment><USER4> Why does the fact that they're unpaid interns matter?

<comment><USER5> Unpaid internship usually means they need the job more than the job needs them. This is not the best situation to be in, for sure, but that's the power dynamics usually.

<comment><USER4> While it's true that in the short term the position benefits the intern more, I think that internships can be a significant part of an effective college grad recruiting program. Not just directly, but from mindshare and word of mouth.

<comment><USER5> This is true, and I've worked in a company that had a very successful internship program and hired very good people as a result of it. However, when people start with pressuring you on dress code being interns, you can't help but wonder how the matters would be developing further... And then you ask - are they really _that_ good that I should take a risk, or it's easier to me to just pass on them? Looks like in this case the decision was "pass".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A petition! And mostly from interns! On a mundane topic about dress codes!

Hopefully these interns learned a hard lesson. Talk to the manager first. Find out what flexibility you might get from these clothing code. If none, just go through the summer and leave with some understanding how to deal with this in the future.

Petition! Wow.

</comment><comment><USER7> Sucks it had to end that way, but an important lesson to learn now rather.

You CAN negotiate just about anything but you need to have the political capital to spend. Knowing when to pick your battles and which ones you can win is also an important life lesson.

<comment><USER8> I agree 100%. This is why I say "Yes" to every single meeting request and mostly don't question the way things are done for the first few months of any new job. You have to get established before you can even hope to influence how things are done.

I do feel that firing the lot of them was really an overreaction. What they should have done was treated it as a teachable moment and explained the situation and why their response was exactly the wrong thing to do.

On the other hand, in their place, I'm not sure I'd want to work for someplace that would fire a whole group of people for something so small. As another comment puts it, the best places to work are those that treat interns the same as other junior employees.

<comment><USER9> It may have been an overreaction in the abstract, but they are trying to run a business. If things like this had been going on for a while, then eventually someone is going to say "this isn't a political campaign, it's a business, and these interns are in the way".

You can't give due process and full consideration to every inane idea. The business will come to a standstill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> A petition isn't the best way to go about it, but, a lot of the comments in the OP about this imply a workplace that employees aren't able to bring their concerns up to management. Of course, this was just a dress code, but that works both for and against the reaction to it: it was just a dress code, how will you treat me if I bring up a more serious issue?

<comment><USER11> > it was just a dress code, how will you treat me if I bring up a more serious > issue?

They did bring up the dress code issue to their managers, and it was dismissed. Petitioning it is a level above that, and while I agree that firing them is a bit much, it doesn't mean they can't take feedback necessarily. It sounds like they would still be receptive if you bring up a more serious issue in the proper way (i.e. talking to your manager).

<comment><USER12> Couldn't they have just ignored the request like politicians ignore many things asked for by their constituents, or is firing the intern the easiest way because an intern isn't a full-time employee anyway and it will mute the discussion?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When you're an intern you're basically a guest.

Imagine showing up to a dinner party and trying to create a lobby of other guests that don't want to take their shoes off in the house. The entitlement of the interns is astounding.

<comment><USER14> Actually you're basically an employee with a number of rights and responsibilities.

<comment><USER13> Then I hope they learned a valuable lesson about political capital in the work place.

I'm a full time employee who is well accomplished, and even I still realize that there is a limit to how much influence I can exert over the business before I get the boot.

<comment><USER15> And unless you're forming a union, ganging up with a bunch of peers and going over your managers' heads (especially for something as trivial as a dress code) is probably the worst way to approach such a situation.

Approaching HR, or discussing the situation with your manager's manager in a 1 on 1 situation is a much better approach.

<comment><USER8> > Approaching HR....

No! Never talk to HR unless there's a problem with your benefits or something. They are _never_ on your side; they're basically there to protect the company _from_ you. If you ever get into a situation you feel can't be resolved without involving HR, just start looking for a new job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I understand the manager's frustration. But, I think taking that kind of action sets a dangerous precedent.

IMHO, no matter how hard criticism may be to hear, (especially when it is entitled and baseless), you still want to encourage and reward employees and interns any time they go out of their way to try and make the company better, stronger, or a more enjoyable place to work. Not because you agree with what they're proposing, but because you want to encourage the free flow of ideas, and the voicing of concerns.

Moreover: When you take on interns, you take on the role of mentor and teacher, for better or worse. I seriously doubt that firing them was the best way to teach them anything.

<comment><USER17> I get overruled almost on a weekly basis, there are ALOT of things I wish my company would do different, I make these suggestions, I explain my reasoning, and if my boss accepts my reasons and approves the change happens, if not well thats the breaks. He may have a perfectly valid reason why what I suggest will not work for reasons unknown to me that is why he is management and I am not (thank god)

I however never circulate a petition to my coworkers asking is they agree with me, or my boss. I never circulate a petition to my coworkers and then present it to my boss as if my work place was some kind of democracy in which is my coworkers all agree then my bosses veto is somehow over ruled.

>>>I seriously doubt that firing them was the best way to teach them anything.

It should have taught them that when you are a new employee and something you request is denied, that is the end of it. You do not circle the wagons and attempt to force the issue.

It should have taught them that the work place is a heirachy with Interns at the bottom,

It should have taught them that the real world is a cold ruthless place and your feels are irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> _What's done is done. But it would be smart to write a letter to your manager explaining that you've learned from the situation and that you appreciate the opportunity they gave you and are sorry that you squandered it._

The manager's decision to fire the interns was entirely within their right and the interns should have seen it as a possibility, even if it was a little extreme. But even though it has essentially no bearing on what happened, the interns were in the right. They saw unfairness in the office, confronted the superior about it, and were ignored. Obviously management needs to protect the privacy of the injured employee, but for the sake of dignity and good communication, they could have at least said "that person has a special circumstance which warrants an exception". Their reaction to being ignored violated social conventions, but was a civil, meaningful expression of dissatisfaction.

The quote above takes the wrong lesson from this story. It encourages _apologizing_ for organizing the petition, but they absolutely shouldn't apologize, because they _were_ in the right. Unless they want to try to still get a good reference out of this employer (which would be characteristically naive), they have no reason to pander. Instead, they should thank the manager for giving them a reality check about how business operates, while holding firm to their convictions. It would take care to not come across as passive- aggressive, but full repentance would only serve to reinforce the manager's authoritarian tendencies.

<comment><USER19> Of course they were right. But it's possible to be right, and still be a pain in the ass. Might make it easier, even.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is being linked everywhere and it smells like total bullshit. First, I thought unpaid internships were illegal in the US now. Wasn't there a court ruling on that a few years back?

This seems like it's fiction to bait the millennial haters, "Get of my lawn" crowd.

Something sounds very off about it. I call copy-pasta

<comment><USER6> Unpaid interns are not illegal. It's illegal to use them for work that a paid employee is expected to perform.

<comment><USER21> Unfortunately, that's what most unpaid internships are like. I know many people who were in internships that weren't just learning experiences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> An awesome learning experience on where not to work. Internships can be a trial period for both the employer and employee, before leading to a job offer. A bullet dodged I would consider this.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wow, I don't know what is more shocking. The fact that the company fired an entire class of interns, or that the advice columnist would side with the managers and chide the interns further.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the interns' proposal... regardless of whether the issue is important enough to start a petition for, it is NEVER ok to fire someone for making a polite and respectful proposal. It is NEVER ok to make someone feel as though they aren't important enough to put forward suggestions.

Not only is it morally disgusting, it is organizationally dysfunctional. Teams operate best when every member feels empowered to make suggestions and improve upon the status quo. Teams operate best when those in power don't use their power to intimidate and silence those with less power.

If there's one takeaway from all this, it is how dysfunctional the the workplace is for most people, and how important it is to protect yourself by planning ahead. Work your ass off and attend an elite university. Pick a profession that's in-demand, so you'll have plenty of options. Otherwise, you're going to be at the mercy of egomaniacs who have no qualms over firing you at the drop of a hat.

<comment><USER24> A petition is actually quite agressive, it's the opposite of what I would call "polite". A company is not a democracy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The response here is spot on and, although I wouldn't say that firing every single one of the signatories of the petition was an optimal strategy, it's an understandable one.

As an intern, you are lucky to have an opportunity to learn and to prove yourself. Don't squander that opportunity on something as little as a dress code.

At least one of you was wise enough not to sign it. I would bet that person's still an intern there.

<comment><USER4> Honestly I wouldn't describe it as quite such an indebted situation, interns are employees who do work for the company. And generally at a cut rate.

Edit: full disclosure, I'm an intern

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Comedy gold! Mind-boggling! I know employers can be idiotic, I know managers can go on power trips, but this time the interns (not even full-time employees) take the cake. Firing may seem harsh until you look at it from from the manager's POV. You have a bunch of INTERNS coming in, banding up, and trying to essentially coerce the manager into changing a company policy involving dress norms. Not only is dress code not a big issue for a full-time employee (frankly it simplifies getting dressed in the morning), but a couple of interns that will be gone in a couple of months and thus have no shared fate with the company and its employees think they can come in and stage a campus rally to accommodate some petty inconvenience? What utter arrogance! How self-absorbed! How socially challenged! What do you imagine the situation would look like if the manager hadn't fired them after pulling a stunt like that? The interns have already created an awkward situation. Instead of focusing on important things entailed by the purpose of the internship, they decided to start a confrontation over dress code at a company they have no full-time employment at. Asking whether they can wear X for reason Y is acceptable in my mind, but the petition was utterly ridiculous. They pretty much forced the manager's hand by communicating to the manager that they weren't serious about their internship and were going to waste the company's time with frivolous crap. Manager 1, immature interns 0. Perhaps they will eventually learn from this experience, though the stubborn, overconfident tone of the article suggests that it may take some time for the wisdom to sink in. They seem either unwilling to see their error or unable.

</comment><comment><USER27> I hope that they take that moxie and go build something great.

<comment><USER28> I agree and feel like they did the interns a favor letting them go. These kids belong somewhere better. :)

<comment><USER29> The beach? :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> My last job had a relaxed dress policy that allowed people to wear jerseys during football season. Not being a football fan, it felt really oddly unfair in ways I'm not really sure how to describe.

I asked them if it was fine to wear a League of Legends jersey, since there was a huge tournament going on in Germany at the same time. The head of HR actually said yes. Wasn't expecting that...

<comment><USER31> I abhor policies like this. if the dress code doesn't matter on Friday it just doesn't matter period.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm not surprised that the interns got fired. Not because of the topic at hand, but because of the petition.

In many ways, an organized petition could be seen as the beginning of union organization. Forget about opinions about unions for a moment. The fact is, most companies do whatever they can to squash a union as early as possible.

</comment><comment><USER33> Buy better fitting shoes and go see a sweet little Asian/Greek/Ukrainian tailor and get better fitting clothes.

Problem solved. And you don't look like some startup schmuck.(I am one but I still suit up often)

Edit: also, no job until halfway through college? Kids got bigger problems than shoes.

<comment><USER34> Shoes are expensive. Even if you are working a low-paying job along with the unpaid internship, it isn't something that most folks can get when they are just starting out.

And even harder to find is a tailor, unless you are in a decent sized city. I had access if actually needed - my mother. My mother did tailoring work off and on to make ends meet, and more later on for herself, excluding bridal shops. Often, there were between zero and one other person in the area doing the work. Most were just to make pants shorter, and few were willing to pay a fair wage for the bigger tailoring.

<comment><USER33> A well fitting pair of shoes can be had for ~$200, or <$120 if you catch a sale.

Remember. These are going to be on your feet 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year. How much is that worth to you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I can't quite tell, but is this about women asking to not wear high heels at the job?

If so, the interns were totally in their right. A dress code that demands wearing heels is just a health hazard.

</comment><comment><USER36> They were required to wear suits/blazers with appropriate footwear, and _petitioned_ for no suits with running shoes and sandals...

Whole thing sounds fake to me, but incredibly naive if real.

</comment><comment><USER37> I wonder if he or she wondered why that worker was exempt?

There are medical conditions that prevent people from wearing leather shoes my partners sister is alergic to pretty much anything and if she wears leather she gets blisters within minutes.

There are also people who will not wear leather due to religious and ideological reasons.

It seems very childish to start a petition because one employee gets treated differently, that's life your boss can also leave early and take a long lunch maybe it's another petition....

<comment><USER38> >The worst part is that just before the meeting ended, one of the managers told us that the worker who was allowed to disobey the dress code was a former soldier who lost her leg and was therefore given permission to wear whatever kind of shoes she could walk in. You can't even tell, and if we had known about this we would have factored it into our argument.

The answer to your question is right there in the article

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> There is clearly some unstated circumstances here.

One shot in the dark: what if the company was concerned for legal reasons? Since the issue had a connection to a disabled employee, is it possible the company could have fired them to avoid any legal conflicts?

</comment><comment><USER40> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12001730](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12001730)

</comment><comment><USER41> Awesome let's get back some old school management. Interns need to be put in their place. Give respect... get respect. No Respect... Out the door.

<comment><USER11> I disagree. Having interned 6 times at 5 different companies, the best ones by FAR are the ones where interns are treated exactly the same as full-time employees. The reality is that interns are not that far off from the new- grads, why would you treat them any differently? Interns should be treated exactly like a new hire, with the exception of the fact that they are temporary, so obviously you don't have to assign them to long term projects or anything like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> One of the commenters said it best:

"Oh and also – petitions really aren't the way things are done. Your workplace isn't a democracy."

</comment><comment><USER43> Almost feels like a non-US company. Or a law firm.

<comment><USER44> Why do you feel like that? This sounds like it could be any and every company to me.

<comment><USER45> Doesn't sound like my current employer (well known Silicon Valley tech firm) We have internal groups for feedback and discussion, suggestions, and constructive criticism on almost everything.

Of course, being civil and respectful still applies but it seems the OP was, too.

<comment><USER46> I wouldn't say the Valley is a good sample set for the United State's business and management practices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm guessing this is Wall Street. "dress code" is more or less non-existent in Silicon Valley.

<comment><USER47> In my experience with east coast companies, that's where the dress code nonsense comes from.

I had a similar problem - ridiculous dress codes that made no sense at all. I fought it the best that I could. I worked for a defense contractor as part of another business unit, and the dress code policy was basically "match the site that you work at." Except that they were trying to tell me that I had to adhere to their dress code policy anyway. How dare an employee wear a nice pair of shorts during a 110 degree Texas summer day! They tried to tell me the dress code was a safety issue. I balked and pointed out that the Union employees on the production line were wearing jean shorts and t-shirts, so their argument was flat. A manager two levels above me said something about the fact that she said that she was appalled that I would dare show up to work in shorts. I informed her that I worked in the Silicon Valley before, where dress codes like ours were almost non-existent. She said that she was appalled that I would dare show up to work in shorts. This back and forth went on, and they finally just admitted "This is always how we've done it" and there really was no reason whatsoever for the existing dress code.

I signed up for the voluntary layoff package and didn't regret it at all. This was in addition to a time where we had to go digging in the library for OSHA lighting standards just to get upper management to tell one supervisor that didn't work in our area to stop flipping on all of the lights when he walked by.... but that's another story. Just about as stupid as most dress codes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> because wearing closed shoes makes you more productive than wearing slippers..

</comment><comment><USER31> Talk about dodging a bullet. Is a petition about dress codes whiny and lame, sure. Firing everyone is just a sign of a place that is shitty to work for.

</comment><comment><USER49> That headline defines the younger generation perfectly.

<comment><USER50> From the article:

A note about this post, which is being linked to from all over the internet: This situation is not about "young people today." The letter-writer's generation is far from the first to bridle at dress codes or misunderstand office culture or start out with little knowledge of how things work in offices. This is about being young and new to the work world, not about what generation they belong to. Most of us made plenty of mistakes when we first started work — I certainly did. So please go a little easier on this person.

<comment><USER51> Saying "it isn't about this generation" doesn't change the fact that it does sum up this generation very well. The level of entitlement is unreal, with people demanding history classes in universities not teach parts of history that they don't like. There has never before been such wide spread self- importance in any other generation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Edit - I missed it in the post. I had read a previous version of the letter that didn't include this detail.

<comment><USER2> > The worst part is that just before the meeting ended, one of the managers > told us that the worker who was allowed to disobey the dress code was a > former soldier who lost her leg and was therefore given permission to wear > whatever kind of shoes she could walk in. You can't even tell, and if we had > known about this we would have factored it into our argument.

(from the OP article)</comment></comment>