I Almost Left Tech Today - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/i-almost-left-tech-today-heres-why-6d146a2f7cf2 <comment><USER3> > What the FUCK is wrong with this industry, that thinks it can destroy people > like this?

I would echo this sentiment if it were "What the FUCK is wrong with my colleagues?"

I have never had a sour personal experience involving any coworkers in tech. Not sexism, racism, anything-ism. Never once, I'm over 5 years in (developer as well).

I've had terrible experiences before I moved to tech.

I know it's just an anecdote--like yours--and I feel fortunate and lucky.

Anyway, I can't echo your sentiment that it's an entire industry. Nearly the entire tech industry would be appalled and disgusted by the behavior of the people in your story.

<comment><USER4> It's great that you've never had similar negative experiences but stories like these are common and, while not exclusive to this industry, very prevalent.

You might think the entire industry would be disgusted but stories like these keep coming out, from high profile tech companies to small firms so it seems pretty clear this is a problem.

<comment><USER5> Like you say, it's not exclusive to this industry and I think it's a problem that, the way we're often presenting it, we make it sound like these problems are only in STEM. We don't consider whether anything is a US-centric issue, or a SV-centric issue, France-centric issue, or whether it's simply _humans being shitty_.

Focusing on "fixing sexism in the industry" is hopeless if the problem isn't specific to the industry, I think.

<comment><USER4> Sexism isn't specific to any one single place. You try to fix the issues that you can impact, in this case the industry we're in.

<comment><USER5> What makes "the industry we're in" easier to impact than "the country we're in"?

And I would say that while sexism isn't _specific_ to any single place, _culture_ is highly impactful on the amount of racism/sexism/homophobia you may experience and this is what changes the most when you go from country to country. A startup in San Francisco will have a very different culture to a mid-size company in Madrid.

<comment><USER6> Because fixing the entire country is a much large problem.

Most of the time, when people talk about "lets fix the broader problem not our specific problem", it is mostly an excuse to do nothing, as opposed to an actual attempt to solve the bigger problem.

People in tech have both the ability and responsibility to fix issues that directly effect the tech industry.

Whereas we don't necessarily have the ability to change worldwide culture as a whole.

<comment><USER5> The tech industry isn't US-only. What you see in the US is the tip of an iceberg that spans six continents.

So again how exactly is it easier to fix something "in the industry" vs. in the country?

<comment><USER6> Because you and me can do our part to help solve the problem here and now.

We can make direct contributions by working to solve the problem within our own companies and move the needle that way.

It is also because this whole "it is better to solve a different problem" is basically just an excuse to do nothing, by throwing our hands in the air.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reminds me of an extremely eloquent comment I saw over on Reddit a while ago about how men being assholes to each other is actually a form of male bonding, and there is a delicate nuance to our rough-edged camaraderie. [1] I was raised in a gentle household by a nerd and a feminist, so when I joined the Army as an infantryman, I absolutely had to learn how this worked and can absolutely attest that it's a real thing. Given the later apologies, it sounds like it's possible the office was bro-ing it up with her and may have even thought they were welcoming her into the tribe, so to speak. (Of course, they could have all just been misogynist assholes, too...sad how there can be little difference)

Thing is, most women absolutely DO NOT respond well to that kind of male bonding. And, honestly, they probably shouldn't--I think this "emotional sonar" is a maladjusted response to men being told they can't express their feelings. Given this, we probably shouldn't be exposing women to that kind of environment either.

I guess this kind of underscores why you need women in the workplace. It's too easy for an all-male space to fall into this kind of emotional language and interaction framework, which is "hostile but comprehensible" to those in the culture, but completely alien to those who aren't--women and foreigners alike. At the very least, we (meaning everyone, not just men) should try to be aware that not everyone bonds the same, and bonding activities for some people and genders may be anti-bonding and hostile to others.

I want to make clear, I'm not trying to justify what happened, but I feel like often these articles are kind of one-sided, which can make it difficult to diagnose what's going on. The problem with saying "don't be misogynist" is I suspect few people identify as one but, on the other hand, we can identify our baggage and try to examine critically how it affects others.

Either way, sorry OP had to experience that, whether mismatched bonding attempts or actual hostility and misogyny.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/5dpezd/girls_what...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/5dpezd/girls_what_things_guys_like_to_do_to_each_other/da6fi9l/?context=3&st=ivp2r7tf&sh=16e79aa2)

<comment><USER8> I think a good example is the "Our app is huge, like my dick." line.

As a guy, this line was pretty funny, and I could see myself saying it (on an all male team). I might not say it in front of female coworkers though, but if I worked closely with one I may say it within earshot without thinking about it. It certainly wasn't an attack on the poster.

Are we just not allowed to talk about genitalia? I guess as a baseline rule it's inappropriate, sure, but he's not being suggestive or soliciting. As described, it's obviously a joke. Not sure where the offense is here other than he said "dick" in the workplace within earshot of someone who doesn't want to hear that.

I'll finish by saying that the rest of it was certainly uncalled for, but this one instance doesn't really stand on it's own as offensive.

<comment><USER9> If a coworker says "Our app is huge, like my dick", I'd say that gives his implicit consent for others to use his dick for comparisons, at least for a while:

"The bug was just a small one, like <coworker>'s dick".

"We missed processing the event because it came too soon, like <coworker>'s dick".

"Dammit...I need to reset this router and don't have a pin to poke the reset hole. <Coworker>, can you use your dick to do it for me?"

Being the butt of dick jokes for a week (especially if some of these making them are women) will probably strongly discourage <coworker> from making future comparisons to his own dick.

<comment><USER10> This used to be acceptable in many smaller places, even ones with women because it was a much harder burn coming from them. These days you have to just go to work and avoided any sort of socializing or non-work related discussion, keep work life and social life completely segregated and hope that's enough (it isn't always). This is the world political correctness (or professionalism if you prefer) has created.

Best to avoid eye contact too, someone could misinterpret that as flirting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This experience makes me sick. There are very different places, where people are generally polite and professional and even fun. And where a sexist comment would not go unnoticed. Hope your next job will be like that.

I once attended a hackathon around some humanitarian cause. Participants in general were nice. However, I joined a team, which had two kind of strong male characters in them. None of them would be able to discuss and think freely. One guy has worked in various startups. Without him telling me more about this, I could just infer how blame-driven his developer jobs were by seeing him interacting with the others. Really scary. The other imagined himself as an activist. So active, that in the end, we did not produce anything at that hackathon and I believe without these two males it would have been much simpler to actually get a discussion going and to have fun.

In general, the more educated and diverse people are, the more they are able to think and think independently. The more people are responsible for themselves the more they are responsible for creating a work atmosphere, that is healthy for all participants - because hate and exclusion lessen motivation and there is one thing that need to go out to all businesses and managers and hierarchical elements: You cannot motivate people - you can only demotivate them. And this can happen much faster than one might believe.

<comment><USER12> Two "males"... I hate it so much when people who are against stereotyping women so readily stereotype men. Those were two _people_ who happened to be men. Your comment is everything that is wrong with today's "feminist" movement.

<comment><USER11> I could have said "two people", it would have not changed the situation not much, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Every time I see a story like this, I am honestly wondering where all these people are working, as I have never encountered anyone near these levels of sexism in many years of working in the tech industry (albeit in Sweden).

What rubs me the wrong way though is when people project experiences like these onto their own experiences of lesser magnitude.

For example, a while back a colleague asked me for a sit-down and explained that she was frustrated that i had "mansplained" her in a meeting. She was fuming. At worst, I might have interrupted her at one point or two inadvertently because there was a heated discussion on a technical topic. I don't want to rob her of these feelings but I feel like overall we're talking about some actual sexist idiots and then have a much larger layer of people who are just looking to be mad about something.

<comment><USER14> >I have never encountered anyone near these levels of sexism in many years of working in the tech industry (albeit in Sweden).

Nor have I, albeit in the US (even in the parts that are Trump-land).

You're European, so maybe you know more about French culture than me: is this something that's endemic to French culture perhaps? Over here in the US, I would be shocked to hear about this crap in any place other than one run by a bunch of 25-year-old frat bros.

<comment><USER13> This type of thing exists, there's even a saying for it in swedish - "grabbig stämning" (loosely translated: "frat-house feeling"). But the last time I remember someone behaving like this was when I was just starting university, at around 19-20 yo, and even then that was just stuff between guys, never to a girl. We are very conscious of how we talk in sweden, and nobody would drop a comment vaguely similar to the ones mentioned above, unless they really hate their job and want to get fired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have often wondered if it is sexism or women getting used to how men treat each other.

Currently, I am a data scientist, but prior to that I was an air traffic controller (ATC). ATC training was brutal. You come in at 0530 for work/training, and you better be ready for a simulator first thing in the morning. Make a mistake get ready to be berated in front of everyone, and be scheduled to work the weekend. If you did well, you got to control real planes that day and you better perform exceptional while answering your trainers questions or forget controlling tomorrow. Questions would include, what is the separation between a heavy and small on final inside the approach gate? What is the radial and DME for xxxx point? What ABQ center's frequency?

We treated everyone the same - men and women. Women would often cry, yet they understood they weren't being treated differently from their male counterparts as every trainee was treated as s __*. We had a 20% success rate with roughly 2 years of training. When you became a certified controller, it was a big deal and for males, every controller in the facility would punch the metal ATC badge into your chest the day of your final rating- it was a rite of passage.

Men treat each other differently and test each other differently, women are just learning this it seems.

<comment><USER16> I wonder what % of the people who "failed" would have made excellent air traffic controllers?

<comment><USER15> None of them would have. It is a stressful job. We created simulated stressful environment and they couldn't handle it. We weren't going to spare their feelings and risk other people's lives.

<comment><USER17> That point-of-view is so important IMO.

Because of the job environment, as an employee you UNDERSTAND the CONTEXT and INTENT behind the working conditions.

This logic applies to life and all social interactions. Assume innocence, positivity and optimism in the INTENT behind the words of strangers - <USER2> they give you a reason to think otherwise.

To anyone who disagrees: If you do not subscribe to this ideal, then what are you advocating as an alternative? Everyone be extremely PC and hyper-aware of everything they say and the indefinite amount of ways their words can be interpreted? it makes just no sense.

Crying foul, fighting to get what you "want" in the moment, rather then what is true and just - I'm just tired of it all, burnt out by the lack of rationality in these sorts of discussions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Weird team, weird culture. That kind of shit is definitely not how it is on all tech teams, including the one I'm on.

<comment><USER19> Most stories like the OP's can be summed as follows:

1\. Some insensitive asshole was lacking respect or maturity or professionalism in general. 2\. Women, who are generally more conscientious than men, naturally react more strongly to said assholes.

I think if you could magically make every employee not act like an asshole, reports of sexism would drop by 99%.

<comment><USER20> This is a comforting fiction, but all you're doing is renaming the special and unfair treatment men give women to "assholes being assholes."

And sure. Yes. That's not untrue. But read the article. She's particularly singled out for special treatment.

Redefining the words or claiming it's actually women being "more sensitive" is just a word game to try making excuses. To do anything but agree, "This is sexist behavior."

<comment><USER21> > She's particularly singled out for special treatment.

Where did you read this? In the entire article she didn't even describe anyone speaking to her or about her except when they apologized, how can this be seen as singling her out?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It sounds like your coworkers are man-children. That's not even just sexism, it's more a general level of extreme immaturity. I wouldn't work with idiots like that.

<comment><USER23> I second this, pretty immature language to be using around a professional field. It never adds value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I hope you can find a company where you are treated as an equal. I can honestly say I've never worked for a company like you describe, so it sounds more like an issue with the company and not the entire industry as you seem to suggest.

As a male, I wouldn't stand for this type of behavior from my colleagues. Personally, I'd be going up the corporate ladder or human resources until I found someone that make this type of behavior cease, and if it didn't, I would be gone. I can't even imagine being on the receiving end of something like that.

<comment><USER25> Bonjour JNeal, Thank you for your kind response. I don't even think it's a company wide problem, I'm certain the misogynist director is influencing every one in this department. I think my colleagues will be more careful in the future, and I will definitely go to the director's boss but I prefer to do it in 2 weeks, when my contract is done. Have a great evening!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Obviously this is over the line and totally unprofessional conduct by those mentioned in the story.

Can anyone come up with a story or things that could be taken as sexist towards a male? I have a hard time knowing if I'm right in that I think I'd be fine with this as I don't take this extremely juvenile crap as seriously or if I'm just really having a hard time being empathetic because I just have never, nor can I fathom, anything rocking my sense of worth so hard.

Maybe I need to experience being marginalized due to my sex or race or whatever to be empathetic? I dunno. I'm sure there's more to it that can cause someone to break down like the person who wrote this. I want to understand.

Do I need a bunch of women to joke about guys with small dicks are worthless or something? Is that comparable? Should I be extremely offended and be willing to quit over that, like the world is against me because of it?

I'm honestly wondering here. Please help me understand. I'm serious. I just don't know what it's like.

<comment><USER27> As your comment wrestles with, you _can 't_ know what it's like, because you don't live under a systemic power imbalance.

The fact that words aren't going to hurt you as much because they aren't coming from an environment of actual systemic discrimination doesn't mean that the people who _are_ hurt by words under discrimination are wrong or irrational.

It just means it's a thing you don't get to experience first-hand and should attempt to have empathy for nonetheless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> And one of the comments on the page is simply "Grow up." Which seems like part of the problem. But I don't want to judge someone out of context, so I clicked on their Medium username to see if maybe I'd misunderstood. It turns out every single comment that user has made is on seven different stories they can make negative comments about women and their accomplishments.

This nastiness is pervasive, and often carried out by people so blind to their own participation that they deny what they themselves are doing.

<comment><USER29> One account pulled that same move several times on medium and the conclusion is "this nastiness is pervasive" [in tech] rather than "that poster is an asshole"?

I seriously doubt the person behind that account denies what they are doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Don't leave tech -- Leave this trash fire of a company.

All the best to you.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Ok, explain me how gender neutral "We don't give a fuck" is sexist

Clémentine shared an article on her team Slack about "I found an article on why so many women leave engineering, and wanted to share it with my colleagues."

One of her colleagues replied on the channel with a video saying "We don't give a fuck"

The combination of those two things is sexist by any possible interpretation I can think of.

<comment><USER31> Things that probably express similar sentiment, but with different language:

      * "Not my circus, not my monkeys."
      * "How do things in those other places concern *us*?"
      * "People suck, news at 11."
      * "You think we haven't been hearing this every day already?"
      * "Thanks, but we already have more than enough things to be outraged about."
      * "That doesn't look actionable."
      * "We're here to do work, not to agitate for social change."

Does phrasing it in any of those ways still look "sexist by any possible interpretation I can think of"?

<comment><USER32> A lot of these I don't think are different phrasings, they're different in meaning as well.

A closer rephrasing with similar sentiment is: "No one cares"

All the phrasing you provided are combinations of: 1) not applicable to me/us 2) we can't do anything about it

For anyone struggling with empathy, imagine you're feeling frustrated with something, you share with your coworkers, one replies publicly "no one cares" and everyone else laughs. Then the next day the thing that was frustrating you happens a number of times and you can't say anything because it's clear that everyone doesn't care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm a guy, and I would quit if that's the kind of behavior I could expect out of my colleagues on a regular basis.

I've worked in the industry for a long time, and I have never seen anything like that.

It seems like a very bad move to alienate 50% of the potential workforce.

</comment><comment><USER34> "Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence undermine the point of the article. Tragically comedic hyperbole.

Pro tip: The next time someone offends you, call them on it. Stand up for yourself. We need more people talking and less "retreat and blog".

<comment><USER20> Step 1: immediately introduce straw men to knock down.

Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed.

Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2.

This playbook is old. It's unacceptable. It's a way to try and shield men from the consequences illegal, unproessional, and immoral actions. It's an attempt to undermine anyone who notices.

You're doing something awful. Stop it.

<comment><USER17> I disagree with you, but I'll keep it short.

The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues and is already assuming intent as malicious. The whole racism/sexism view- point comes from a misunderstanding and attribution of malice to innocent parties, it's so god damn ironic.

I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism. But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without intent, context and backstory. Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance.

<comment><USER20> > The author is injecting their own narrative into the words of her colleagues > and is already assuming intent as malicious.

I'm sorry. In what professional work environment is "move over I need room for my big dick" an appropriate statement? In what environment is it appropriate to actively mock a team member for posting an article, to the point where they cry in the workplace?

The range in which "intent" would have tipped the ever-sensitive scales of our judgement was somewhere well before, "This app is big like my dick."

It's ironic that people strive to defend this sort of garbage as work appropriate, and pass it off as a norm. It was not, and only recently have some places allowed it to be. Places that open themselves up to justifiable lawsuits, reduce productivity, make tech work more expensive for everyone, and increase the sum of human misery in the world.

> I will not and do not tolerate sexism and racism.

Okay good but...

> But I will also not blindy accept claims of racism and sexism without > intent, context and backstory.

I'm sorry, but ... what on earth are you talking about? What context would make this okay? What backstory would permit this behavior? To me, this reads as, "I will oppose it unless I feel like making decisions about unobservable phenomena.

> Logic and rationality > outrage and ignorance.

The cold hard logic is that actions indistinguishable from sexism by both third parties and the aggrieved party ARE sexism. Intent is immeasurable. Pleading intent is asking others to take on an act of faith in defiance of the facts.

<comment><USER35> Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here? It's possible that this group of guys is more socially awkward than is apparent. It doesn't justify this sort of behaviour, but it really is possible they have no idea the impact they're having on this woman.

It seems that any response other than total outrage gets shot down as heresy. I'm just not sure that's the most pragmatic approach to fixing this problem.

Communicating to these guys, the level of hurt they're inflicting may actually bring a better resolution.

While I'd never make comments like that around at work, I'm very conservative, I was not aware that someone would be as deeply hurt as the author was. I work in an environment where jokes like that are common and often come from the only woman in the office. So I simply had no idea that this could "destroy people".

It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs. Again totally different, but I've always felt it was up to me to control my reaction. I can easily get hurt or offended, that they're rejecting me and that the work place is hostile to someone that believes as I do. But I work to avoid thinking along those lines as it will do me no good. I can't change the people around me but I can develop a resilience such that those things don't bother me.

<comment><USER20> > Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here?

That's sort of the question the author posed, now isn't it?

> but it really is possible they have no idea the impact they're having on > this woman

Presumably some did, as they apologized. Again, exactly what are you proposing here? At what point does carelessness become neglignece. Are you suggesting this is a large group of people with a very specific and very similar set of neurodiverse characteristics?

What?

> I was not aware that someone would be as deeply hurt as the author was. I > work in an environment where jokes like that are common and often come from > the only woman in the office. So I simply had no idea that this could > "destroy people".

If at some point people could stop talking about their dicks and start doing their jobs that'd be amazing. How do you find time to work in between all the posturing?

> It's not the same as sexism

Except that it's indistinguishable from sexism without a powerful form of mass telepathy...

> I can't change the people around me but I can develop a resilience such that > those things don't bother me

It's impressive that you started off with "Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here?" and ended with this. It's a total around-the-world of the gaslight playbook. Be more sensitive and think about the feelings of the men harassing the woman. And hey, she should be tougher anyways.

What you're saying and promoting is needlessly unfair. Stop it.

<comment><USER35> >That's sort of the question the author posed, now isn't it?

I think you are saying there needs to be empathy for the author? If you are, I totally agree. But I was saying also for everyone that is coming down hard on the guys some empathy there might be more constructive. If they knew the degree of impact their behavior was having they might moderate their behavior.

>If at some point people could stop talking about their dicks and start doing their jobs that'd be amazing. How do you find time to work in between all the posturing?

Yeah sure I'm not a fan of that sort of behavior. I don't think it's posturing at least in my workplace it tends to be self deprecating humor, of a sexual nature. But I think you missed my point. I've seen people bond over this kind of behavior, but never seen someone hurt buy it. The degree of hurt described by the author is beyond what I'd have thought possible. This is because it is so commonplace around me. Not because I think it unreasonable.

>Except that it's indistinguishable from sexism without a powerful form of mass telepathy...

My comment was "It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs". I think you must have misunderstood? I was saying mocking my beliefs is different to sexism? You disagree?

>It's impressive that you started off with "Do you think there is room for a little more empathy here?" and ended with this. It's a total around-the-world of the gaslight playbook. Be more sensitive and think about the feelings of the men harassing the woman. And hey, she should be tougher anyways.

I'm not saying she should shut up and be okay with this. I'm saying everyone is in control of their own emotions. You can limit the amount of influence you allow others to have over your emotions. If you do this your life will be better. Only let those who love you and you trust be strong influences of your emotions. Because bad people exist and you will have to interact with them. By all means call them out, get them removed from power. But never ever let them get under your skin. You have the ability to rise above that, to be sovereign over your happiness.

I also find the accusation of gaslighting unfair. This is a form of systematic psychological manipulation. It's a big deal to accuse someone of that.

>What you're saying and promoting is needlessly unfair. Stop it.

I think that you've misunderstood me as I don't think anything I'm promoting is unfair.

<comment><USER20> > But I think you missed my point. I've seen people bond over this kind of > behavior, but never seen someone hurt buy it.

How would you know? Are you confident everyone around you would be comfortable telling you that your behavior hurt them?

> My comment was "It's not the same as sexism, but there are often jokes and > discussions that mock my deeply held religious beliefs".

Hey. I wanna draw a line here as well. These conversations are ALSO not work appropriate, in the same sense that it is not appropriate for a Christian to suggest gay people don't deserve equal rights.

Those topics are best left out of the workplace.

> I'm not saying she should shut up and be okay with this. I'm saying everyone > is in control of their own emotions.

This is false, according to the science. What's more, keeping a tight reign on one's behavior comes at a mental cost, and that energy could be better spent elsewhere.

> You can limit the amount of influence you allow others to have over your > emotions.

Please consider updating your information here. This is victorian era stuff.

> I also find the accusation of gaslighting unfair. This is a form of > systematic psychological manipulation

I think you're complicit in gaslighting. You're suggesting we have more empathy for the people causing pain because they just don't know. You deflect talk of gender harassment by re-centering the conversation on religious beliefs. Then you STILL rebutt her feelings by saying SHE specifically should be in more control.

Yes, it's a pretty big deal. But I think maybe yours is the more honest sort of gaslighting, where you're conditioned to accept this behavior. I suspect if you critically examine it more you'll realize that the cons of allowing it far outweigh the pros.

<comment><USER35> Okay I'm out. All the best. But I don't think we're going to come to agreement here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I don't see any sexism in this story. Some people just are rude and there are assholes everywhere. What the author describes is a group dynamic going sour and alpha behavior. Everone, male or female, will experience this at some point in their life. That sucks, but it will never change as it is part of the human condition. Also, being a woman doesn't mean you are entitled to emotionel gentler treatment.

</comment><comment><USER20> It's a terrible example of how these stories are suppressed when Hacker News allows them to be flagged off.

This story is relevant to tech, compelling and topical. It was receiving upvotes that put it on the front page. But it got flagged to oblivion in under an hour.

Edit: Update, either enough people vouched on an invisible article (via twitter?) to unflag, or the mods intervened. We'll see.

<comment><USER37> Remember, if you find an article worthy of discussion being flagged or otherwise suppressed, email the mods. They'll take care of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This sounds like an HR issue.

Does this company have a HR department? If so, what was their response?

<comment><USER39> By the sound of it, it's only the 8 people in the entire company. No place for HR in a company that small.

<comment><USER16> In a company of 8 people, it's a "corporate culture" problem and is 100% the fault of leadership, which probably isn't going to change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Company sounds like a bunch of clowns. This is one of the things VCs are thinking about when they talk about bringing in "adult supervision."

</comment><comment><USER41> I have not read the post.

I just want to say whatever "ism" is involved you can find it in any industry you wish. It's a person thing not an industry thing.

Have you seen any discussions about "sexism in the coal mining industry"?

Somehow in tech people attribute each and every personal experience and anecdote to the industry and as far as I can see it's unique to tech.

When a female employee has her ass grabbed in your average boring accounting firm it doesn't make headlines. But if it happens in a tech startup office in SV suddenly it's treated like a crisis in the entire industry.

I don't get it.

</comment><comment><USER42> I want to ask this question as gently as possible: Is it acceptable or common in French culture/companies to use a phrase such as "Move over I need a place for my big dick"? It sounds so aggressive and hare-brained that I can't really imagine anyone in the US saying that without begging for a sexual harassment case targeted towards them.

To be 100% clear: I'm not justifying this behavior at all. My point is that when having a beer with friends, its common to joke around like that. I'm just wondering if in French culture, when going out for drinks, if its common or socially acceptable to make these jokes. From the lady's viewpoint, it seems like its not.

<comment><USER43> From a straight-man point of view (me) it is also not acceptable.

<comment><USER8> From a manager, while in the workplace, sure.

At a bar, drinking beer? I dunno, sounds like they were joking around. If I can't talk about body parts at a bar while drinking beer, I'm not sure where you can.

<comment><USER43> Why would I want to talk about these parts in the bar? Or why would I want to hear about them from someone else?

I can't talk about these parts at the bar. And I'll feel very uncomfortable and will have to ask that person in the group to stop if they were to do that.

I hold a belief that one needs to maintain professional (or at least semi- professional) conduct in the bar too. Otherwise, it is just too immature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> In this case it looks more like your team/company is shit. Even as a male something like "I need room for my big dick" would've made me very uncomfortable in a professional setting.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is a reflection of your coworkers not an entire industry.

<comment><USER46> Rather, this is a reflection of an entire culture of woman-hating and female disempowerment that has been prevalent since Aeschylus wrote The Oresteia, of which these coworkers at this one small company are but a typical example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Thank you for sharing. This is a wonderful story/example of what a microagression is and how hurtful it can be even though it was not a targeted attack.

I believe these stories, as they're shared and read, are making a difference which will end up being a better industry for all sexes. I believe that because stories like this have educated me and my intuition is that it's educated and influenced others too. Which means more change is coming.

</comment><comment><USER48> The team described may exhibit an extreme behavior. But, I think it's fair to say that women experience "death by a thousand cuts" in male-dominated fields, not just Tech.

I also think that young men learn the lesson of disregarding women early. I started coaching co-ed youth basketball recently. At ages 10-12, boys are already disregarding their female teammates as potential contributors. The boys aren't overtly hostile. They just don't even think about passing to the girls. They don't trust the girls to play good defense, so the boys try to cover too much floor, ironically allowing more points to be scored against us. I'm steadily working with them on trust and inclusiveness. But, it amazes me that they're so young and already need to unlearn negative behaviors.

</comment><comment><USER49> That's a terrible team, hopefully non representative. I haven't ever seen a work environment that would be even close to producing something like this.

However, looking at the article itself, there is some irony in using a picture of a woman in a bra, tousled hair, as a title picture for an article on sexism.

Is this how the author comes to work? Is this how a woman programmer should be pictured? Its also not the first time these type of articles, with these type of pictures appear, even here on HN.

<comment><USER50> The image seems to be a representation of the oppression women in tech face. I guess the model is wearing that because she's in water. Only the jeans look out of place IMO, not the swim appropriate top.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> There are many great places to work. In my 20+ years, i've never ran across that toxic attitude.

Maybe it's time to publicly shame those workplaces.

</comment><comment><USER52> Everyone begging for this company to be doxxed is no doubt just hoping to evaluate it and begin a "no true scotsman" argument that excludes this behavior from our industry from a whole, and, most importantly, excludes their own team/company from being part of the problem.

</comment><comment><USER53> Slightly off topic but ... Women in tech please do this ...

Focus on a different and more important problem. Find a Director/VP level employee to be your mentor. Basically, I feel, to fix these issues we need more leadership diversity. Focus on getting more power.

</comment><comment><USER54> Where do you work? This is unacceptable. They should be publicly shamed.

<comment><USER55> Normally I'm not against blasting companies based on a single data point/experience, but if this is really how those colleagues acted I would be shouting this companies name from the rooftops.

It sucks that this is able to happen. It's even worse that its common enough to be thought of as an industry standard.

I don't really have anything to add (for op) other than leave that company immediately, shame them, and move on.

<comment><USER56> I would advise the tactical route of leaving, acquiring gainful employment elsewhere, then shaming. Got to look out for yourself first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Seriously..someone needs to get fired to use such profanity over slack channel in an office environment

</comment><comment><USER58> Seems like her colleagues have the maturity of 15-year-olds.

</comment><comment><USER59> You almost left tech because a bunch in tech are socially awkward weirdos who don't give a crap about other people. Period. It's not about being a woman... it's that the tech field is full of anti-social shit.

<comment><USER20> Yo I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say you've never had a woman and a manager walk up and say "Move over I need room for my big tits."

I'm sure those experiences can exist in this world, but data we have paints a picture that these "socially awkward weirdos" aren't so weird and special and snowflake. They're garden variety sexists of the most boring and hurtful sort.

<comment><USER60> So, I think there is a worthwhile discussion here that's getting lost in all the emotions. The discussion comes down to this "Should we look at this as a gender debate, or an engineering debate?"

I can see why gp wouldn't want to see it as a gender debate, because it negates the negative experience some men have around other toxic male engineers.

I can also see why you wouldn't want to deny the sexist element's existence, that would just seem counter-factual.

I also want to express a hesitation to reduce this to a gender issue, because I find it so often creates an US-vs-THEM mentality. Because I'm a guy, and I think many managers in engineering are abusive, and I don't think the fact that the abuse isn't throwing out the word "pussy" negates the severity of the situation.

Consider Japan, where stress at work has gotten so bad, the country has made a goal of reducing suicide rates. I think we need to unite around work standards before we get to that point, not as guys vs girls, but as workers vs investors.

<comment><USER20> > because I find it so often creates an US-vs-THEM mentality.

Maybe if workplaces were not deliberately enforcing a men-at-the-expense-of- women social norm, this notion wouldn't exist.

> Consider Japan

No, I'd rather not. A reductive analysis of Japan's workplace dynamics isn't helpful here.

<comment><USER60> I find your response dismissive and counterproductive.

I don't understand on what basis you can discount the realities of alternative cultures.

<comment><USER20> > I find your response dismissive and counterproductive.

Then you are perceptive. I have no interest in discussing the complex landscape of Japan's gender roles, historical context, current economic issues, their declining birthrate, and their intersection with the current prime minister.

We need not point to any of that to agree that this behavior reported in the article is indefensible.

Your first instinct upon hearing this is to say, "Yes, well, that seems inappropriate but really I think this isn't about how we treat women but how we treat engineers." Yet you follow through later in the thread with the contextually audacious claim that I'm overly dismissive?

Productivity here will be limited.

<comment><USER60> [I recognize at this point the topic has changed from gender to effective discourse on HN.]

> Your first instinct upon hearing this is to say, "Yes, well, that seems > inappropriate but really I think this isn't about how we treat women but how > we treat engineers." Yet you follow through later in the thread with the > contextually audacious claim that I'm overly dismissive?

I definitely did not say that. Perhaps you should reread what I did say: that we have a choice of how to interpret things like this. I'm sensing that you think if one doesn't interpret this as sexist that this is somehow an attack on women, because you seem really defensive.

I'd also challenge you to examine your own motivations, because if you think this short back-and-forth has furthered a cause it has only served to reinforce my caution in trying to intellectually engage on prickly topics [and make snarky "triggered" jokes amongst friends / reddit].

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I wanted to offer some thoughts to the author of this piece. I don't wish to belittle you or make light of your situation. But I do want to point out a few things. Foremost, you need to understand that free expression is not illegal and does not necessarily fall under sexual harassment law, most of which deal only with harassment by those in positions of authority against their direct reports. Companies have all kinds of sexual harassment policies they have cooked up but those policies are for protecting the company against lawsuits, not you. There is no legal recourse and probably no HR recourse, either.

Annoying cads exist everywhere. How you deal with them is what matters and it doesn't just happen to women and minorities, as much as our culture of identity politics and victimhood would lead us to believe. I'm a white guy (oh so privileged) and have had plenty of horrifying incidents with people whom I have worked with, some to the point where I quit the job I had just to be free from my antagonists, which is exactly what they wanted.

What I am trying to tell you is that there are sociopaths and people with Borderline Personality Disorder and they are everywhere in corporate America and waiting for their next victim to walk by. There is no avoiding all of them. All you can do is learn to deal with them in such a way that it does not tear you down psychologically--and yes, sometimes that means getting away from your abuser.

I once had a co-worker who had it out for me for no particular reason other than he is an out-and-out asshole seeking to protect his comfy, do-nothing job that my software would eventually have automated out of existence. He would seed distrust and fear about my project behind my back to all the major stakeholders, every meeting I was in with him was nothing but a knife-fight with me defending my team of developers from outrageous allegations, he used every sneaky trick in the book to attack my credibility without once taking a direct, personal jab at me. Despite that, I was completely undermined and ineffective in my role. I talked to my manager, to HR, none of them did a damn thing about this guy. He was absolute poison to that company...crickets. So I know a thing or two about these kinds of issues having been harassed for months on end albeit not in a sexual manner.

In another case, there was a VMS administrator at a major healthcare company who didn't want to see his comfy VMS admin job end by my team replacing the crappy, way out of date, COBOL-based shit system that barely worked. He won--I gave up and left that place for greener pastures and that company is still stupidly running that piece of crap system at the cost of millions of dollars and it was so bad that it cost them all their profits in a major line of business. All because of one intractable personality and really nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER62> [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

 _What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon._

I too normally dislike things disappearing from the front page in 5 minutes but I made an exception for this submission and flagged it because such stories are dime in a dozen and this one brings zero new information, solves nothing and mainly just perpetuates hostility.

<comment><USER63> We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868934](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868934) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER20> Fair enough. Thanks for the note. I was confused.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Why was this flagged?!

</comment><comment><USER64> Provide evidence. If it's so prevalent it shouldn't be hard. We all know about Uber, come up with something original. You are accusing the entire industry as a whole after all from little firms to giants.

<comment><USER65> These two articles went around a while ago (Microsoft, Pinterest):

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/18/11262888](https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/18/11262888)

[2] [https://qz.com/659196](https://qz.com/659196)

<comment><USER19> Given the number of UFO sighting claims, you would think everyone's chance of encountering a silent flying saucer shaped object in their lifetime is near 100%. My point is, everyone sympathizes with stories of abuse/sexism/racism, but the number of articles written about them doesn't prove they happen frequently or even that they happen in the majority of workplaces.

<comment><USER4> Sexism claims can be backed up by facts, courts, admissions of guilt. They're nothing like UFO sightings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not exactly.

Suppose you're living in Saudi Arabia as a woman, and men there are treating you very poorly and in a sexist manner. Should you conclude that "men have a big problem with sexism"? No. The correct conclusion is that "men in Saudi Arabia have a big problem with sexism". Go to someplace like Norway and you're probably not going to see the same dynamic.

The same is likely true here: she's in France. I've never worked in the tech industry in France. However, I've worked in a bunch of different companies, in different industries, as a software engineer here in the US, and on both coasts too. I've never seen behavior like this. So IMO, the conclusion should be "the tech industry in France is misogynistic". The answer for her, therefore, IMO is to get the hell out of France.

<comment><USER66> > _The answer for her, therefore, IMO is to get the hell out of France_

Regional and cultural differences are real, and have a much larger influence on Hacker News than is commonly realized. But bringing that up as you did in this thread, by pouring national flamebait into a gender flamewar, is definitely not using HN as intended.

Moreover we've warned you repeatedly and asked you to fix this and you haven't. Therefore I'm banning you again. If you genuinely want to use HN as intended you're welcome to email firstname.lastname@example.com, but would you please stop creating accounts to break HN's rules with?

We detached this comment from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868502](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14868502) and marked it off-topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> The girl is right but sociopaths and weirdos will often outnumber her, not only in the coding field. I am afraid her reaction shows she has a long way to go before developing the thick skin she needs to survive and assert herself.

<comment><USER20> Alternatively we could use the beloved principle of meritocracy to point out that none of those people are the kind of geniuses that would offset the cost of a sexual harassment lawsuit and they should all be disciplined and possibly fired for their unprofessional conduct.

But sure. Tell her to 'grow up.' Tell her that because there are bad people in the world, it's her responsibility and role to accept and cater to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Oh look, a few hackernews flagged this article to keep women in their place. Stay classy.

Anyway, if I saw what OP saw at her company, I would quit. And I identify as male. And I think we owe it to women to deny sexist companies access to hiring the 90% of programmers who aren't jerks. Well, 80%.

</comment><comment><USER69> from the article looks like everything started just after the author posted a link on the slack channel. maybe just avoid posting this articles on slack. you are supposed to work not to rise a fire. if you had problem about sexism in the company you should leave/complain and not trying to fix something chitchatting on slack.

</comment><comment><USER70> You should publicly denounce this company, in your article and here on HN.

Grab as much evidence of the unacceptable behavior and put it online for all to see.</comment>


Why Skype fears Open Source - <AUTHOR> http://eu.techcrunch.com/2009/11/02/skype-goes-open-source-sort-of/

<comment><USER2> Techcrunch is down at the moment.

Without reading the article, it seems clear that Skype fears open source software because it's competitive advantage is based on its large user base. If open sourcing their software means that competitors can provide Voice Over IP services that leverage Skype's user base, Skype definitely should fear OSS.

What they are afraid of must be opening up the Skype communication protocol, not the software in it self.</comment>


Ask HN: How does Opera make money? Why isn't their browser not so popular? - <AUTHOR>

HN, Is anyone here from Opera?
My question is simple as in title: Does anyone know how Opera makes money?
Feature after feature, we see being ripped off from Opera browser into other browsers. Why isn't their browser eating into the market.
AFAIK, it's only the mini browser that does have a tiny bit share in the mobile market.
Anyone? <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if this is still the case, but Google used to pay them a big royalty to be the default search engine. Opera also charges a licensing fee for embedded versions such as DS lite and Windows Mobile versions of Opera Mobile and Mini.

Edit: here's the real story, from the horse's mouth: [http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication- breakdown-1000003...](http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication- breakdown-10000030/how-operas-business-model-works-10012796/)

And some backstory on the Google connection: <http://gigaom.com/2005/09/21/google-made-opera-browser-free/></comment>


We Don't Simply Get Remote Jobs, We Join Remote Teams - <AUTHOR> https://remotebase.io/blog/we-dont-get-remote-jobs-we-join-remote-teams/ <comment><USER3> I work remotely. I'm from Romania and we have a team that's distributed across the country, with some members from other European countries as well. We do have a small office where I live, but it is provided just as a place to come to in case you don't like working from home and I do go to our office almost daily, but most of the team is on the other end of a Gmail/Skype/Slack connection.

Today I got tired at 1 PM, got up from my desk, got my bike and went for a ride in the park nearby. Once in a while I would take the phone out of my pocket and give quick answers on Slack, but most of my time I enjoyed what is the beginning of autumn. You can feel it in the air, it's more chilly, the light gets warmer and the color of the trees start changing. It's by far the most beautiful time of the year for walking in parks. And it felt great. Now I'm back home and I'm thinking of finishing my work, but after I eat something.

And I do this all the time, while managing to get shit done. Many times I work late to finish this or that. But I'm a responsible software developer, I care about the project and I can work without somebody watching over my shoulder.

And surely there are those times where you need to do design sessions with the rest of the team. But we do those over Skype and every once in a while we travel in order to meet face to face. There are challenges in communication of course, but we make it work.

<comment> vertex-four That is generally not compatible with the American way of working - <USER2> in the startup scene - where ever second you're not working is considered a second that your competitor companies have over you.

<comment><USER4> I would not say this is an accurate view of most US jobs. I have yet to have a job that was not flexible with working hours or working location.

<comment><USER5> Every single job across industries that I have ever worked at (and i've only worked in the US) has been inflexible on hours and location.

<comment><USER6> It's almost as if... different people have different experiences at different companies... as if, dare I say it, not all people and companies are the same?

<comment><USER5> Yep, that was my point.

<comment><USER7> Right, but the person you replied to was giving the counterfactual that _not all jobs_ are like that. It didn't need to be rebutted; they were not instead stating that ALL jobs are flexible, just pointing out not all AREN'T.

<comment> vertex-four Actually, the argument was that "most" jobs in the US are flexible on hours. I really doubt that's true, given that there's a good many minimum-wage or close-to-minimum-wage jobs out there, and a lot of traditional 9-5 office jobs, and the US still has factories and lots of other companies which need to run to a schedule. And the idea that a single person could state that "most" jobs are anything based on personal experience is probably incorrect.

<comment><USER7> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm partially remote working (RW) at an organization that is slowly rolling back its RW culture(1). The motto for this goes like 'teams work better if they are collocated, yada, yada'. The real reason is that managers want to feel in control (plus they want to drive away a lot of people by taking RW away). "Culture" is used as a smoke screen for more sinister incentives. (I can say that with confidence because I can see that RW is working fine while what hinders productivity is mammoth bureaucracy and politics put forward by the same people that keep blabbing about "culture".

To me it's clear that remote working is (should be) the way to go (why on earth tech jobs and consequently tech workers should cluster in small geographic areas, spend hours in commuting and feed our salaries to landlord rentiers is beyond my understanding). Then again other things in the past were a no-brainer future (e.g. less working hours - see experiments in Kellogs) but the world spinned to a different direction.

PS: Of course RW makes your tech job even easier to offshore which makes the whole thing more of a mixed bag of blessings and curses - like everything else in life :) .

(1) I think the trend started off by M.Mayer's move to roll back RW in yahoo (<cynic>leading to the spectacular yahoo growth we all know of</cynic>) but I'm not sure.

<comment><USER9> > The motto for this goes like 'teams work better if they are collocated, > yada, yada'. The real reason is that managers want to feel in control (plus > they want to drive away a lot of people by taking RW away).

Sorry, but I've got to be the party pooper in this thread. I have worked with teams over the years that indeed DO work better co-located, and who ARE more productive when forced to communicate in an open office environment, etc. Night and day difference. When not in that environment they reverted back to the ol' "do something in isolation, throw it over the fence, wait days for feedback, then iterate" mode. I will stress that not all teams needed co- location, but many absolutely did.

This whole thread needs to be filed under the category "different people/teams thrive in different environments", because right now it's a "remote Work is best for everyone" echo chamber.

<comment><USER10> > who ARE more productive when forced

The key word there is "forced".

<comment><USER9> Yep. Some people default-to-productive, and others need guidance, coaching, "forcing", whatever you want to call it. It's almost as if different people have different motivations, work habits and communication styles!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is somehow ironic that not so long ago we could send ships on a 4 month trip around the word, could manage the construction of amazing buildings or sent armies to fight wars on the end of the word without being able to communicate with the people doing their job/duty. Nowdays we can barely let change the font size of a button on a webpage without having a stand up meeting or a conference call.

<comment><USER12> I'm pretty sure that, if Queen Izabella could have daily standups with Chris Columbus, she would.

<comment><USER3> That's not the point. The question is if Columbus would have done his job better if he had the ability to do daily stand-ups with the Queen?

I don't think so, because the Queen probably didn't have the skills of an explorer. Great leaders have always delegated ;-)

<comment><USER13> In all fairness Columbus was pretty terrible at his job. The only reason he was even working for the queen in the first place is because pretty much no one else would hire him because of his track record of being terrible at his job. He tried sailing to India the long way around, almost ran out of supplies and got lucky that the Americas happened to exist.

<comment><USER14> Its possible he had a Chinese map showing that the Americas _did_ exist. Which he could barely read, and concluded that India was over there. He got the distance right; just not the place.

So he had enough supplies for the journey he made, that part was actually planned. No luck involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > In remote team, we get to experience the culture at its most naked form. > There is no catered lunch or a hip office with table tennis table. > Everything artificial is stripped away.

I totally disagree with this. The most naked form of communication is (and IMHO always will be) face to face. I can't tell how many countless times many emails were exchanged before simply speaking face to face solved the problem.

Working remotely is awesome. All power to remote workers, but no amount of collaborative tools replaces the value of face-to-face communication.

<comment><USER16> Not in every case. It was often an excuse for my last manager to not do anything like write down requirements. "I thought we talked about that." "Yes you changed your mind three times and I can't remember what the final outcome was."

Personally I like having things done in writing as you have something solid to refer to afterwards.

<comment><USER17> Sure, instead he'd just change his mind three times distributed across hundreds of Slack messages, and you'd still have no tracked resolution.

When you have a decision born of a conversation, the only useful thing to do is to write that distilled, focused result on some median other than the discussion itself.

This problem ultimately has little to do with remote vs colocated; The same applies whether the discussion happened in verbal discussion, a meeting, an email chain, messaging, etc.

<comment><USER16> That problem is easily solved, look at the most recent message. Though a lot of the problem was caused by incredibly incompetent management.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love this topic. On one hand, many tech giants spent an exorbitant amount of money hiring and bringing their technical talent to one location. Easy examples such as Google and especially Amazon come to mind. On the other hand, any studies on the subject strongly imply anyone farther than 50 feet rarely speaks anyway so you are better off with remote teams as they are setup with better tooling (slack, et tal).

[https://goo.gl/bvNXHQ](https://goo.gl/bvNXHQ)

As a single data point my experience as a hiring manager and allowing remote candidates allowed for a much higher level of talent to draw upon. Furthermore, I have had remote teams develop a great culture merely by turning on their cameras during the daily standup.

Finally, I also question the productivity of team building 'dinners' and other one-off activities. Having been part of teams with lots of corporate dinners and teams without its hard for me to really call out any specific value.

I truly do want to be convinced otherwise, but the strongest argument I have seen here so far is a vague 'Face to face is superior' when I have had great remote teams with cameras on. Anyone have a more data driven argument? Even if its a few data points?

<comment><USER19> I'm all for being remote (been working from home for about 8 years now for 3 different companies). Two scenarios where face-to-face wins:

1\. "Onboarding + noob training". Sure, this can be done remotely but it's vastly more effective face-to-face especially when the tech isn't limited to the computer and there are "real life" gadgets involved in getting set up for development.

2\. If the team isn't 100% remote it takes extra effort for those in the office to be "inclusive" so that remote folks are 100% up to speed. Just like with any extra effort in an already busy environment this doesn't always happen. Can't really blame them either - if a decision is made on the fly between two busy devs hacking their asses off and they rely on you seeing their PR to derive what they decided on that's just how things go sometimes.

<comment><USER20> For #1, it's enough to not make the team remote 100% of the time. If you get everybody together for a week or so every few months, you'll get those activities done.

<comment><USER19> Sure it's doable. Getting everyone together often can get pretty expensive though (flights, hotels, less stuff gets done), flying the noob over to shadow an experienced person 1-on-1 is probably a better way to go.

The point is there are cases where face to face is preferable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> alex-yo _There is no shortage of remote job boards and job aggregators_

That's true, there is just a shortage of the job offers. I'm looking for a remote job now. All the job boards have between 2 to 5 job offers per day. To each of them answer thousands of people.

The aggregators are even worse. They are automated. That's why they contain an ad even when it has _no remote allowed_.

<comment><USER21> If you're looking for a job, put a bit more info in your HN profile about what sort of work you're looking for, and what you specialise in.

<comment> alex-yo Good point, thank you.

<comment><USER22> Interested in your `conference talks about databases` is there any online links to your talks? also your email address strikes me as being a bit odd. I guess you don't want the bots finding your real email address.

cheers.

<comment> alex-yo Yep, anonymity is funny. I'm not sure about the recordings, and presentations are not in English, and are made as a background for talking, so reading them would be useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think the main point of this article (which could have been half the length) is that you can't just declare a job remote.

You have to have a culture and technology that supports it, or else if you take that remote job, you're getting set up for failure.

If everybody else is having water cooler conversations, and making binding decisions based on them without email or chat, any remote employee is going to be constantly blindsided, and not rewarded by the organization.

I worked on one (and am currently working on another) highly distributed team, and the amount of whip-cracking that my manager had to do to make sure everything was documented and accessible to everybody on the team was incredible.

<comment><USER24> Technology is there - Jira, Slack, Skype, GitHub, email...

There is absolutely no excuse to not have remote jobs.

<comment><USER23> Did you not read most of my comment?

The technology is there, it wasn't ten years ago.

Now, it comes down to management setting strict guidelines and enforcing them.

What good is it to pay for Jira accounts when nobody uses them? Or what good is it to have Github and everybody ends up hosting their own private repos?

That is definitely a management mandate, and logistically, it's a lot easier to manage a group if they are all in the same place.

<comment><USER25> I'd say the tech has been there a lot longer than you think, I've known people who've worked in distributed teams 20 years ago. Yes, the tech was a little different, but it was still good enough.

I absolutely agree with you though that the culture of making sure everything is done using those tools is the important part. You essentially have to give up most of the benefits you might get from some members being colocated and do everything as though you were all at separate sites.

<comment><USER26> > I'd say the tech has been there a lot longer than you think, I've known > people who've worked in distributed teams 20 years ago. Yes, the tech was a > little different, but it was still good enough.

E-mail, chat system, telephone, version control system, remote access were indeed there and are still enough for most use cases.

What was missing or not very good or reliable? Video chat and screen sharing, perhaps? I dislike the first, I find it almost doesn't bring anything positive compared to the phone but has drawbacks. And the latter makes me seasick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I've thought a lot about this. I am posting this in an attempt to give an example of what's worked for 1 company, not as a "guide" or "best practices". I post this in an attempt to give people ideas on what may work for them.

I operate an engineering team as a seed stage startup across 2 coasts of the US, multiple parts of APAC, and europe.

We are around 13 full time with a few part timers. We started as 2 people. Our first hire was co located with us. Our next one was remote.

From there we've made our hires only through referrals or our open source channel.

We did YC W16 this year as ~6 people and most of us remote. We've more than doubled the team after having raised nearly 3 million.

A few notes on what's worked for us:

Remote first office, no one (even if there is an office in your area) is required to come in (at all). We use [https://gitter.im/](https://gitter.im/) to interact with our open source community, partner companies, and team members.

Half of our hiring happens on gitter as well.

Some of us choose to for a separation of work and home.

We don't have job postings either. We do this on purpose. We tell engineers the same thing: Show up in our open source channel. This offends some people, but has worked for us. I won't claim this scales long term, but there have been fairly large companies (~800+) that have scaled this way just fine.

We've found productivity to be quite high overall. A lot less noise and very efficient communication.

Part of it is self management. The hires we make tend to have that part down pretty well. I've learned to spot bottlenecks. Part of that is just by keeping an eye on a lot of channels. Proactive reaching out if there are problems helps a lot. Periodic check ins are a must.

We do a weekly google hangout across 5 time zones that amounts to being a standup.

For scoping engineering work, we tend to have longer projects people are working on, usually a minimum of a week. This leads to less context switching.

Happy to answer questions or expand on anything that sounds interesting.

<comment><USER28> >>> We do a weekly google hangout across 5 time zones that amounts to being a standup.

>>> For scoping engineering work, we tend to have longer projects people are working on, usually a minimum of a week. This leads to less context switching.

This sounds like a pretty nice granularity -- glad to hear that it seems to be working out.

Most of the trouble I have with standups is the "daily" part...

Are there any downsides you've found to this kind of rhythm?

<comment><USER27> In the midst of this we communicate quite a bit throughout the week on what we call our "dev channel".

We try to keep most communications there so other people see what's happening too.

For business development we have "growth channel" that does the same thing, but for cross functional marketing and sales.

The week long projects do 2 things or us - it gives us the ability to reassess if someone needs help, and it forces people to plan a little bit.

Other than that, async communication throughout the week has helped a lot. That usually replaces the "walk up to desk" thing people do.

The key here is you're not expected to reply right away.

Of note is we do the hangout on Tuesday of the week.

This means you can get your act together on monday and prepare, tuesday we have the 1 meeting and

try to cluster other meetings around that (usually another hour at most) and then the rest of the week is free to get work done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> My team just started a large project; a few of us work remotely and a few are in an office. For the project, we opened a Zoom video channel, and all sit there with video chat running on our second monitors. It's working out _great_. We very much have the be-able-to-pop-in-for-a-question thing going on like you would in a project war room.

I'm thinking of making it a standing thing one day weekly to work this way. There's certainly a distraction tradeoff, but the communication bandwidth is just phenomenal.

<comment><USER30> lol, this sounds even worse than working at the office.

I became remote worker to get rid of all that synchronous crap, to work at my own times etc. none of these constant "pop-in-for-a-question thing"s

If something is really important call me, otherwise email/chat is enough.

<comment><USER31> If youtube still had video replies, you could do something useful, with that I guess. But, alas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Communicating with co-workers while working remotely is not as simple as going up to their desk and starting a conversation."

Probably the main reason I want to get a remote job. Constant disruptions.

<comment><USER32> A recent high-priority project allowed me to tell people they couldn't bother me for 6 of my 8 hours in the office. It's been awesome for my morale and my productivity both.

I love helping others, but being interrupted constantly is incredibly frustrating. It can wait until tomorrow.

<comment><USER28> Are you able to keep this going once $high_prio_project is over?

<comment><USER32> I have no idea, but I'm hoping so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I get what this is saying, but there does seem to be a nearly-unspoken assumption here that the "perfect" working environment involves high-frequency communication, including regular synchronous communication -- i.e. replicating the open-plan/daily standups/short iterations model of programming that seems to be the current thing for in-office programming jobs. That's a perfectly reasonable model, and clearly suits a lot of people well, but I do hope there's still appetite for exploring coarser-grained "trust people to go off on their own to solve problems" models as well.

<comment><USER33> It's hard - when that model (leave people to do the right thing) works well - it is amazing. It needs skilled and engaged people.

The problem comes when you have people that don't work well under that model, and who need continual check points to ensure they really are doing the right thing, and that you haven't just wasted a bunch of time.

Getting these two groups to work together is hard, when sadly, getting great people is hard.

<comment><USER28> Agreed. But there doesn't seem to even be much willingness to _try_ the "autonomous people" model.

<comment><USER34> There is unfortunately a bias against introversion in many companies, which explains why some don't bother to try. (Recent article: [http://www.economist.com/news/business-and- finance/21706490-...](http://www.economist.com/news/business-and- finance/21706490-organisations-have-too-long-been-oriented-towards-extroverts- companies-should-help))

Having said that I agree also that there are also trust issues. Forming trust is a hard thing.

It's a shame, because programming (from at least my perspective) is one discipline, where the quality of work is so much higher when you are "in the zone" and can concentrate on a single task without interruptions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I believe the real dichotomy is "async/sync" rather than "remote/local". There are individuals who require constant micro-coordination on every decision and others who get the big picture immediately and can implement details without specific instruction.

My best decision was probably offloading team coordination to a dedicated "community manager". Even an undergrad working part-time and using mobile Slack / GMail can be trained in an afternoon and be 110% effective. The amount of bandwidth it frees up so you can focus on strategy and product is a Godsend ;)

</comment><comment><USER36> Does anyone work in a remote team with an always-on video conference?

I really, really prefer being able to shout out a quick question but the friction costs (and fear of interrupting deep thought) about calling someone, sometimes even a Slack message, prevents communication at times.

The times where I've been pairing or on a long call "in the background" have been great I thought. Any downsides for those who do this regularly?

<comment><USER37> we don't do always-on video conferencing where i work, but with slack + zoom, you can really easily start a conference call on the DM chat (/zoom -> works)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> To follow up on what @agibsonccc has been saying: Remote, open-source hiring is one of the best ways to match companies and candidates. I used to have to recruit for a closed-source company, and it was really hard to get good information - for the company and for the applicants.

Wrote about it here, if anyone's curious. Recruiting is a trail of tears: [https://www.linkedin.com/today/author/0_03COrPtojnK4VxI2N1tX...](https://www.linkedin.com/today/author/0_03COrPtojnK4VxI2N1tXlm?trk=prof- sm)

In open-source, you have nearly perfect information: the contributors see the company's code and how they operate as a team; the company see the contributor's code, persistence, reliability and friendliness. And anyway, it's open-source, so everyone is solving their own problems for their own reasons, so they get something out of it in the end no matter what.

</comment><comment><USER39> I don't see any valid reason why anyone vaguely technical should commute to an office.

I think this is really overvalued: "communicating with co-workers while working remotely is not as simple as going up to their desk and starting a conversation".

Anyone technical despises being interrupted when working. This is why Hipchat/Slack/irc is the best way to communicate, even when sitting right next to eachother.

Communicating by text is also better because you never have to say/type the same thing twice. You never forget what a teammate told you because you can look up the conversation.

Company "culture" must be something for people who don't have families or friends. Personally, I don't get it.

I have worked remotely for 3+ years as a contractor. The last office I worked at involved a long commute even though I mostly communicated by Hipchat.

I don't ever see going into an office again unless it my my own leased space. Remote work is the future!

<comment><USER28> >>> Anyone technical despises being interrupted when working.

>>> This is why Hipchat/Slack/irc is the best way to communicate, even when sitting right next to eachother.

I probably fall into this category (actually, for a lot of "serious" things I prefer e-mail to Slack/Hipchat/whatever), but I'm not at all sure this applies to "anyone technical": there does seem to be another culture of technical folks who genuinely do thrive on open offices or "team spaces" and lots of discussion.

I don't think there's any environment that will keep everyone happy.

I wonder if we'll eventually see people sorting into distinct introvert- oriented and extrovert-oriented organisations?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I would be very happy to join a remote team as a data analyst / scientist but, whatever reason (skills, fit, pay, age, time zone), I am falling short. For what I see, many still consider employing remotely as a way to assemble a cheap sweatshop, preferably drones.

<comment><USER41> Those are mostly first-timers with remote. If they've tried that they know that the only way for it to save money is to throw a boatload of management at it and in the end it costs the same or more. People who can reliably work remotely are worth attracting because there are many more of them than there are good employees in your local commute range.

<comment><USER40> Main problem is micromanaging time instead of targets and milestones. No trust, remotely? Fine, just don't fake it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I love working remotely because it has allowed me to run my business while travelling around India. But I still feel my work would be more efficient if I was sitting next to my co-workers. There's some intangible quality involving instant feedback, body language and social interaction that would make our communication more direct and engaging.

Despite all the advances in technology for working remotely, face-to-face remains the best even for digital businesses. Facebook and Google are evidence of this: working remotely for these companies is the exception rather than the rule.

<comment><USER43> I do a mix. Some days I like working remotely. Others I will go into the office.

I think more than anything I just want freedom. I don't want to be locked into 8-5. Some days I want to work late and do stuff during the day (yardwork, appointments). I just want flexibility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> If only applying to a remote job didn't feel like putting my resume into a digital paper shredder.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is great. The Digital Nomad future is upon us. I've been doing it for 3 years and it's wonderful. Live where you want. Get out of the Silicon Valley rat race.

</comment><comment><USER46> I am the only employee in a company of about 60/70 who is completely remote. I was actually working from the headquarters and then ended up relocating to a new city. While I enjoy the peace and quite and get 3 times more stuff done, I cannot shake the feeling of isolation. Some days I feel like i'm going fucking insane not having somebody to just walk up and talk to or go to lunch with.

Yeah there are coffee shops. But really how much time are you going to spend working out of a busy coffee shop? Maybe 3 or 4 hours before you realize that you can't hear anybody on a conference call or you're irritating someone next to you who's studying for an exam.

There are also co-working spaces, which cost on average about 25% of what I pay for my apartment. Seriously, if you're thinking about working remote REALLY consider what you're getting into. Being stuck in 4 walls 8 hours a day does amazing things to productivity but is ultimately a fucking mental torture.

</comment><comment><USER47> It really depends on the type of work that you're doing. If the work requires a lot of communication and details that need to be hashes out with people from various disciplines (i.e. PM, UX, Eng), you need to be colocated to get the job done quickly. Doing this part remote will only lead to frustrations and missed deadlines. But if everything is fully spec'd out and split into bite- size pieces for engineers to simply fill in the wholes with code and follow the spec, then a remote team can work really well. I've seen this many times at past consulting companies and now a product company where we do have some remote workers.

</comment><comment><USER48> If some of the site owners see this. I clicked on a random job by Gitlab. Two of the links at the end looked interesting. Both are dead.

[https://remotebase.io/handbook/hiring/](https://remotebase.io/handbook/hiring/)

[https://remotebase.io/2015/04/08/the-remote- manifesto/](https://remotebase.io/2015/04/08/the-remote-manifesto/)

Whose fail? Gitlab's or RemoteBase's?

<comment><USER49> Looks like the job text/urls is scraped. These two URL's have the same text:

[https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/developer/](https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/developer/)

[https://remotebase.io/company/gitlab/jobs/developer](https://remotebase.io/company/gitlab/jobs/developer)

So I suspect thats a remotebase.io issue. The links you're after are:

[https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/hiring/](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/hiring/)

[https://about.gitlab.com/2015/04/08/the-remote- manifesto/](https://about.gitlab.com/2015/04/08/the-remote-manifesto/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I have almost no marketable skills to speak of, how can I work remotely?

I'll take phone calls, answer questions from a script, whatever I have to do.

Also, what marketable skills should I focus on developing if I want to work remotely in an actual, skill-required job?

I'm not incompetent: I'm proficient in plenty of basic office software, I can troubleshoot/fix a computer, and I can type 90wpm. You know, the fundamentals.

Thank you in advance.

</comment><comment><USER51> At this one trench of a large corp where I had a minor contract, they had an office in multiple locations. The idea was, to avoid traffic jams people would work from the satellite offices until the traffic cleared. They opened these up in areas where a large number of their employees commuted from. It was pretty slick, with private sound proof rooms, open spaces for team meetups where they would work then carpool to the main offices, cubicles, lounges, super nice kitchens, etc... In fact it was a shitton nicer than the places they called their main office.

They ended up selling some of it, or downgrading because teams just stayed at the nicer satellites and some ended up getting poached by cunning recruiters and other internal teams.

Edit: The floorplan was pretty far out there and I think they were emulating some European layout. It was super dynamic, so people and teams could migrate between conference rooms, private enclosures, private shared offices, lounges, etc... as they needed or desired and remote conference to the main office. Though after some super important team that had the floor above us lost several key developers and admins to a local company , and people from the main offices were commuting to the satellite offices instead, they started selling off floors or closing off access.

</comment><comment><USER52> In my experience it is best to create your own remote job.

You can start consulting / freelancing.

Or existing job can be made remote. Employer must trust you.

<comment><USER53> Actually, This is a smart approach. A friend of mien made his own team and he's doing quite well v.s the old way where he was paired with people he did not get along with

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Clearly getting rid of RW fixed Yahoo /s

</comment><comment><USER14> I recommend SococoRS for this issue (making remote work seem more like teamwork). It allows you to actually go up to a coworker's desk and say Hi. Unless their door is closed of course. Does screen share/vid conferencing and chat rooms, all in a simulation of a virtual office.

{ I own stock in Sococo }

</comment><comment> blubb-fish Remote work is going to be the future - aided by VR technology collaboration in teams will become much easier.

I already look forward to living in a little house on cheap ground somewhere in the nowhere and do my fork from there :)

</comment><comment><USER55> Okay, look. This is easy. I can't pay rent or a mortgage with a team. When my kid asks me what's for dinner, I can't feed her some groceries I got with all the team spirit and esprit de corps that I've picked up. When I need to go to the doctor and he says I need something expensive, all my fellow teammembers aren't going to immediately offer to pitch in and help with those. The author says "I think that we mistakenly put jobs ahead of teams because we choose to ignore the obvious, and sometimes nuanced complications of remote work." No, it's because I've got bills to pay and people to provide for.

<comment><USER56> I'm surprised you made it all the way to the third paragraph if you just weren't going to read the article.

The point the article is making (a point I understand really well, as a remote worker and a non-24 sleeper) is that a remote job isn't simply "do your exact same job, except do it at home". To actually have it work, you need to fully account for your remote employees. This affects your company, it affects work management, planning, execution, everything. It affects how the work is assigned, how it's prioritized, how the meetings are held. It completely changes the social aspect of the job, so that needs to be accounted for both from the employees' and employers' perspective.

Or you can just ignore all this, interpret the article's title however you feel like, and talk about salary. Whatever.

<comment><USER57> At my employer, it takes 8 dedicated Slack channels, numerous daily, weekly, and monthly meetings, and a dedicated conference room. And continual reminding from the boss - "Call a random team member, and BS for 5 minutes, you have my permission." But my remote coworkers are definitely part of the team.

It does help that the office parts of the team are scattered between 2 offices in widely different time zones - people in the other office may as well be working from home. This is for a 24/7/365 support organization.</comment></comment></comment>