To Raise Productivity, Let More Employees Work from Home (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2014/01/to-raise-productivity-let-more-employees-work-from-home <comment><USER2> The problem with working for home is that the person who gets half of what you do done, but stays in the office, is more visible to the higher ups. So you want everyone to work from home and meet when needed, rather than half and half.

In 2011-2012 I had one guy actually consistently take credit for what I was doing because I would work at my place and show up once a week with deliverables (there was a hardware part to the job, and I'd rather use my small workshop built next to my home if I can).

Essentially he told everyone that he was the team leader for the project, and people started to believe him. All he did was walk around the offices and make powerpoints.

He kept telling people that he needed more men and resources to complete the project... all the while, me and another guy were doing good on the project (about on budget, a little ahead of schedule).

Eventually this guy's whining, intended to give him a little empire, is heard by one of the actual bosses. We get called in to explain why we're behind and need more people.

And that's where the crazy thing happens. We show up with the first batch of production devices -- not even prototypes -- and do a full demo, and say "this has actually been ready to field test for a couple weeks now". Great, right? Except... everyone was so used to talking with the douche guy that they didn't really pay attention to us. So we got a dressing down for being late (douche said "it'll take two months for this to be ready to go unless I get two more guys on it"), with the finished product happily beeping and logging data on the conference table!

I felt like Galileo before the Conclave. These were scientists and scientific administrators, believing some twerp's word over their own eyes.

And that's the story of why I quit NASA.

<comment><USER3> I work from home and it's less than half and half for our team. But working from home doesn't mean you don't communicate. Email, Document collaboration, Regular VC all contribute to the visibility of your work. No one can take credit for my work because I'm _extremely_ visible through multiple channels. I don't even show up at the office more than once every few months.

Visibility doesn't have anything to do with being in the office. It has _everything_ to do with communication and you can do that with a VC pretty much as easily as you can face to face.

<comment><USER4> It's worth noting that, in a lot of companies without an established work- from-home culture, you need to over-communicate in order to compensate for the lack of physical presence in the office. As the saying goes, when you're out of sight, you tend to be out of mind. Therefore you always have to remind people that you're in front of your computer or on the phone busting your ass, instead of watching TV or taking a nap, which is what people assume you're doing by default because that's what they would be doing if they were at home.

<comment><USER5> Github checkins, Hipchat comments, JIRA tickets opening and closing, emails, texts, etc. If you work from home I recommend :

1\. Overcommunicating, which also creates documentation 2\. Leaving an audit record, like a time log 3\. Going to as many office social functions as possible. You can up your visibility as much with one party as you can with ten days in a cube.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> 3 years WFH - I could never go back. Flexible core hours make handling daily life chores a breeze (normal life stuff, doctors appointments, etc) and so long as you get your work done, the company doesn't bat an eye.

If I need to I split up the day and in many cases this ends up working out for the company, as I'll have done more work than I needed to even sometimes working the weekends (which most people say to avoid for obvious reasons, but it doesnt bother me).

It also helps when you love what you do - software is passion and career for me. The ability to work remotely allows me to explore things like programming in creative capacity , wfh provides distraction free environment which in the end leads to more creative well rounded employees.

<comment><USER7> I've noticed our employees who often work from home seem to work more hours in the end. For better or for worse. On the one hand, yay for me. On the other, I imagine it has serious implications for work/life balance when that dividing line isn't there.

<comment><USER8> I know I factor in the commute time saved, so the actual net balance might be the same for a lot of people (i.e. saved one hour of commute / work an extra hour).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> To be fair, this is happening because of the wide spread "open office" movement ruined office work in the US. Who thought that putting 10-20+ people in the same space without boundaries is going to increase productivity when we know that humans are not good with context switching at all. Now, working in an open office environment is a series of continuous interruptions from different sources. I am not surprised that working form home fixes this. :)

<comment><USER10> Great point...

I have worked, in order, in a no WFH open office, yes WFH with private cubicles in the office, and yes WFH open office.

#1 was terrible. In the case of #2 while I could WFH, I would deliberately make it to the office at least 4 days a week because I was so much more productive. And #3 has me staying at home when I want to work, and showing up in the office when I want others to know that I am working.

Take away the nonsensical open office system (which may work great for jobs which are almost completely collaborative at all times, but are terrible for most jobs) and an office which provides some privacy is actually pretty awesome.

You get to control your interactions with coworkers, and are far more efficient interacting when you really need to.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, for me personally an office is better than working from home, _if_ it's a real office. A cube may suffice, but walls and a door are even better. In my last university job, I went in to the office typically 4 days/week even though I strictly could've gotten away with only going in the two days I had classes, because I had a real office, and I liked the separation of my apartment not also being "at work". I'd take the 5th (and sometimes 6th) day to work in coffee shops or libraries as a change of pace. Interestingly those don't bother me the way open offices do. Libraries tend to have an explicit ethos of quietness, and coffee shops have noise but to me it's more of a background din that's not very distracting. Maybe because I don't know the people like I do in an office.

If it was a bad commute I probably wouldn't have gone in either, I'll admit. But for the me the commute was actually one of the reasons I went in; it was about a ~40 minute walk, which "forced" me to get some regular exercise and fresh air.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Been working from home for a year now and I will never go back. My productivity has gone up 2X, mainly because I'm not physically present in an office pretending to work by just being there. I need to push code in to prove I've done work.

Once you're comfortable with your setup, you can pretty much work from anywhere. I've been travelling regularly lately. As long as I have my laptop and a decent internet connection, I'm good to go. Huge benefits for the business and for me.

<comment><USER13> >As long as I have my laptop and a decent internet connection, I'm good to go.

What about a chair? I've found a good chair is also essential

<comment><USER14> I had trouble finding a decent chair, so I switched to the IKEA Bekant sit/stand desk. I work standing for about half the day, so if I'm having issues with my chair at least it's not for the whole day.

<comment><USER15> Do you like the Bekant? I thought about getting one for my home office, but it seemed a bit expensive for IKEA furniture...

<comment><USER14> I really like it. It's a bit pricey for IKEA, but compared with other adjustable height desks, the price seemed quite good to me. Also, since it looks like what you would expect from an IKEA desk, it blends into the room nicely. It doesn't look as utilitarian as some other desks might.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've been working from home for the last three years and I can say that I'm far happier and more productive on a day to day basis. I worked in offices for about 10 years and just never felt comfortable in the cube life.

I think one of the biggest improvements is that when I need to take a break, my breaks feel productive. 20 minutes of cleaning the house, as an example, feels completely mind-clearing and, in some cases, actually helps me solve an issue I may have. I really enjoy my daily runs or bike rides, which help me feel like I'm more than just a developer, that I get to take advantage of the day.

That being said, I believe the biggest drawback is the monotony of the at-home routine. Some days and some weeks just feel like one large workday, and sometimes I can go for a day or two without saying a word to anyone other than my wife, or my cats. That's the greatest challenge for me. Working in a busy coffee shop probably appears like it would help the improve the feelings of isolation, but it oddly does the opposite. I see the same folks coming and going, day after day, and rarely do I get in conversations. And I'm actually quite social.

I don't think I'd go back to an office if given the choice, but I'm still working on the best way to feel less alone. I've been road bike racing on a team for the last few years and I believe having that constant outside-of-work social activity has helped quite a bit. For me, the cats are also huge! Plus, I just love cats. But there's certainly room for improvement and that's something I think about often.

I should note that I was hired to work remotely. My whole team is remote and spread out around the country.

<comment><USER17> I've been having similar difficulties lately. I've been thinking about shared workspaces. Have you given them a shot?

<comment><USER16> I actually have an office in town that I can go to (I work for a larger company that's in a lot of cities) so I try to go once or twice a week. I just have an open cube in a quiet corner. It does help, but I usually don't talk with anyone because it's both a very small office and the team there works on different web properties. I'm moving in a few months to a really small town so I imagine I'll checkout shared space there, if I can find it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is my first "work-from-home" job. Honestly, I don't see how I ever survived working in an office before this. Between massive gas expenditures, thousands of hours lost in commutes, and daily distractions, my productivity and happiness have increased 10-fold at least.

I can't go back to the office. I've been spoiled. :)

<comment><USER19> I worked from home for 4 years in my late 20s. It's brilliant. There's one thing I wish I'd been told at the beginning: You really have to _strive_ to maintain your social life. Work _hard_ at saying yes to going out and doing things. Do not make the mistake of believing that online chat, gaming, forums, and Facebook is the same as meeting people in the real world. If there's one thing that working from home does, especially if you have a job you really enjoy, it's that it makes it exceptionally easy and fun to just sit write code (or whatever you do) for 14 hours straight without actually talking to anyone face to face. That will absolutely _destroy_ your social life.

<comment><USER20> I think that is good advice. What I don't understand is why does social life have to be tied to work? I mean, its quite clear this happens a lot, to the extend that the President and First Lady met while working (not to say dating is the only form of social life too, btw). Although I don't work from home, I do try to develop and maintain more friendships outside of work than from within it. It helps to keep "work" and "play" separate.

<comment><USER21> _What I don 't understand is why does social life have to be tied to work?_

It doesn't. But as you get older there are fewer and fewer other avenues to meet people, unless you proactively join social clubs and the like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> One problem with working from home - being forgotten about.

I worked as a technology analyst for many years and when my kids were born opted to go part time, working from home. While the routine work came through, those 'interesting little projects' that makes work so interesting dried up, partly because I lost sight of the interesting little problems that cropped up that would make interesting little projects.

After about 4 years, I was in the situation where I was being paid really quite a lot of money for not doing an awful lot. The CEO was was very nice and we would meet up sometimes and he would say "I promise there will be something very engaging to work on soon, we value your experience"

But in the end, I ended up resigning, despite the fact that they wanted me to stay on and pay me lots - I just couldn't keep taking their money in good conscience. Shame - it was a great firm.

<comment><USER23> Sounds like you needed to use something like Slack for office communication. It's very important that everyone adjusts their habits to integrate remote working rather than just the ones who are remote. When the communication stays within 4 walls but some of the team is not within those walls then problems such as yours arise.

<comment><USER24> It's impossible to get people to really do this if you have 98 of them in an office and 2 of them remote. You can try to mandate it, but people are going to revert to human-talk. If you're serious about a mixed environment of remote and in-person workers, you must develop systems that account for the resolution the remote workers _will_ inevitably lose.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> And yet every single YC company job post is on site only. I've been watching the jobs section for about a month and I haven't seen a single remote job.

There really needs to be a culture shift in SV to support remote workers.

<comment><USER26> Well when the president of YC speaks openly about apposing remote work I think it's safe to say there's a huge bias to asses in seats [1]. That said I know of at least one YC alum that supports remote work [2].

I can't stress enough that remote work is not an organizational tactic. It's a cultural one. You must design and grow your remote working culture just as you would your product. Half-assing remote work and having 10 people in house with 2 people remote just doesn't work. It's in that scenario where I think remote work gets a bad rap.

1\. [http://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-hire](http://blog.samaltman.com/how-to- hire) 2\. [https://zapier.com/](https://zapier.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The problem with work from home is that you have to get past the one issue most offices cannot do right, the personnel issue.

As in, there are people who don't work well at work and management knows they likely won't work well if not worse if from home. However because personnel issues are hard these people linger on and stifle benefits that others could enjoy because no one wants to put up with the idiocy when they are told, so and so can work from home but you cannot.

To raise productivity first act on those who are not productive so that the rest of the team doesn't have to tip toe around a problem that has been to obvious.

<comment><USER28> That's the FUD factor talking. The OP reported none of this happening. Its an unfounded fear.

Anyway its the same problem whether or not they work from home - some people will underperform and have to be let go.

Finally, use some collaboration software and folks 'working from home' or from other sites will seem as connected as people working in the office. Even more so - a meeting of remote workers works better in fact, because each one has a headset and can be clearly heard and distinguished. Instead of for instance a crowd of people 'in the office' sharing a desktop microphone and heard as a babble by everyone remote.

We use Sococo (I work there). Its got the best presence information in the industry. Its clear who's working and who isn't. You can see everybody in the area, who's active and who's idle, whom they are talking to and what meetings are going on. Managers love it!

Working 'remotely' for 5 years now, in a company where everyone does it. Its superior in almost every way.

<comment><USER24> I work remotely right now. We have 2-3 people call in and 4-5 people who are sitting together in person in a conference room in the office. The problem is that you lose the physical cues that indicate when it's someone's turn to talk. The remote workers end up trouncing all over everyone else when they try to speak, because they don't have the cues that the people in the conference room are using to determine it's someone's turn to talk. Remote people talk far less than they would otherwise because they can't tell when it's safe to interject. The meetings still function, but it's a significant disadvantage over being present in the same room. It can also be hard to appropriately distinguish speakers until you learn the voices of your colleagues really well.

<comment><USER28> Exactly. Get them out of the conference room and back at their desks. They can put on headsets, run a collaboration tool (like Sococo) and turn on their video cameras. Now everyone is on an even footing! And its actually better than what you're doing now - everyone can share docs with everyone else; others can be called into the meeting in seconds; folks can chat privately and get their stories straight so presentations go smoother.

Even though we make Sococo, we had to train our management to ONLY do Sococo conferences for exactly the reasons you mention. Everything went much faster after that.

In fact we have to train them to stop calling it a 'conference call'. Its just a meeting, like any other meeting you ever held before. Except everyone can hear everyone perfectly; more than one person can share docs (at the same time!) and everyone can keep in sync effortlessly.

<comment><USER29> You might make everyone on an even footing; but the people around the table would have been more effective around the table than in their separate cubes with a headset.

<comment><USER30> At work we don't use Sococo but instead rely on Skype, Google Hangouts or Lync (depending on the project/client), but our experiences have matched what JoeAltmaier has said so far.

Whenever possible we prefer everyone be connected individually as opposed to sitting together in a conference room. The conference room becomes a distraction, impedes proper communication between all members and the attention spans increased when everyone connects from their workstation. The conference room creates two areas with two distinct conversations so if we're really aiming for an integrated environment we enforce people connecting from their workstations as opposed to using a conference room.

Culturally it also spreads that idea that those sitting together are better than the remote workers, which given our line of work is an unproductive idea to keep propagating. And while there might be differences, they pale in comparison to the negative impact that ignoring or discriminating remote workers has in our projects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Working at home is so incredibly context specific I wonder how applicable this data is to other industries. I'd love to see more studies done to figure out how good or bad working at home is in general and what industry(ies) it works in versus doesn't work in.

Personally I usually get more work done at home (especially since there is no commute time) but I also usually work more hours because I get constantly interrupted at home and context switching is hard (at least for me) (wife and kids = interruptions). Even though I love being able to see my family more, saving money on gas, etc I still prefer to work the majority of my time at an office mostly because it's far easier for me to avoid context switches at an office than at home (switching too much is exhausting).

<comment><USER26> That's why you need an office. If you own a home I encourage you to build a small separate structure in you back yard to house your office. If you're in an apartment it's much tougher.

The context switching is all about setting expectations. Everyone in the house needs to know that when you are in your office or have headphones on then you're not to be bothered.

<comment><USER31> Ha, I do have a small office but it's hard with multiple kids that are able to run around and open doors. Sometimes it works out and sometimes not so much.

<comment><USER32> Put a lock on the door.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Story about a large enterprise: I have worked for a startup and I can honestly say that working from home can be very productive.

However, I work for a large enterprise now. The problem is most of the team doesn't really have much to do most of the time. To show off, people either

        1) spend minimum 8 hours or more in office or
        2) Blabber all the time about how challenging and demanding their work is. I am looking at you, the sysadmin, who takes 3 weeks to create a server.

If I work from home, or use my free time in office for working out/ my own learning, they get frustrated. They pass passive aggressive comments like showing me the clock when I come in or go out.

The only criteria for them to show their work is the hours, and they never lose a chance to make sure that they remind me and the manager about that- like how they had to do something on weekends or how they have a meeting after 6 p.m. I tried to ignore all this. but it's hard. Those kind of people are the majority. So here is what I did:

Since I don't get to utilize my time properly, I decided to make sure that I at least piss them off more: I have always been an early morning person. I now come to work before anyone else. At least I enjoy the look on their faces. They have nothing to bitch about now :)

</comment><comment><USER34> I've worked both full-time remotely and full-time at the office(both own single person office and open office plan) and much in between. For me the significant variables are commuting time, office plan, co-workers and family.

When I had my own office it was easy to concentrate at work, however I couldn't remote at that job. My commute distance was okay in summer (20 min cycling), but in winter it was too much (45min in bus or cycling).

Previously when I worked in an open office I remoted a lot, going couple of weeks without visiting the office at times. Then the commute was hour in bus or by bike so remoting was convenient. Also the open plan office was pretty bad for my productivity. We also didn't have a daughter then so there were no daytime distractions at home.

So I think its all about the balance. Any way you slice it, I need low- distraction environment to get coding done and much prefer short commute. In my current job I can remote couple of days a week which is okay and gives nice bit of flexibility for life. However I think I could handle more, but only after our daughter starts to go to daycare.

</comment><comment><USER35> As a developer, I can't agree more. Unfortunately, I have to work with sales teams and a variety of groups/individuals that just refuse to buy into the concept. The irony is that I get more done in 4 hours at home than I do during 8-9 hours in the office. But, some people are all about that "face time". Seems to be on the downtrend, though.

</comment><comment><USER36> > Question: So Marissa Mayer, who famously banned working from home at Yahoo > last year, was wrong?

> Answer: It's not so simple. There are lots of factors that could lead to > such a ban, including a culture where remote workers tend to be slacking > because of low morale. Also, we were studying call center work, which is > easily measured and easily performed remotely.

I let most of my team work from home when they want to and I think the above answer has a fair bit of truth to it. You need to start with some way of measuring productivity to know if an activity works for your team or not.

The nature of work my team does is very exploratory and by definition, alot of it won't pan out in the real world so we spend a lot of time thinking about how to track progress to figure out what types of activities pay off for us and what don't.

Not to suck up to Hacker News here, but the best predictor of success we've had is does a person have demonstrated startup success.

</comment><comment><USER37> I work from home because the office is not always a pleasant place to be. I peg the reasons as due to an open office floorplan and micromanagement.

Management has torn down the cubicles in favor of open workspaces. Several of my coworkers carry on loud conversations or use their speakerphones. There are frequent interruptions. I can't concentrate.

The preponderance of micromanagement (in the form of Agile + Scrum) also encourages working from home. Instead of sitting in useless meetings in person, I can dial in and get work done while the meeting drones on and on...

</comment><comment><USER38> I know people who work from home and get a lot done, but the general feeling when you get the 'WFH' email in the morning is that the person is taking the day off :\ it's hard for the people taking advantage of it not to create a stigma that effects everyone. Especially to management.

<comment><USER39> Exactly.

My company is 100% virtual, and we've been WFH for about 4 years. I remember taking an official day off with my family, where we met up with another family for a fun outing. The other dad (who worked for a non-WFH company) was "working from home" while we were out enjoying ourselves.

Irked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> WFH doesn't just pay off in productivity, it pays in compensation, too. Our latest survey shows that full-time remote devs get paid 40% more than never remote devs:

[http://stackoverflow.com/research/developer- survey-2015#work...](http://stackoverflow.com/research/developer- survey-2015#work-compensation-remote)

There are probably a few reasons behind this phenomenon, not least of which is richer countries outsourcing to cheaper countries. But even in wealthier countries, remote devs get paid more.

No surprise then that more developers are working remote than ever before. This year 29% of devs told us they work at least part-time remote vs. 21% last year.

<comment><USER41> > Our latest survey shows that full-time remote devs get paid 40% more than > never remote devs

Anecdotally, I would suggest the demographic of employees who work remotely plays a part in this. In my experience, employers are more willing to let senior or "better" developers work remotely than less ambitious, less productive ones who need more day-to-day managing. Since quality developers (senior or otherwise) are generally paid more, I would presume this contributes to a higher average salary for remote workers.

<comment><USER42> Agreed. Not everybody is good candidate for WFH. There will be slackers, especially during non-busy times.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I think I've been stunned in my career to find that companies only pay lip service to Working from home. They'll let you take a day here and there but to paraphrase a manager at one of my jobs "we wouldn't want it to become a regular thing"

It really just blows my mind that every company doesn't have WFH days or let their employees pick a day or two to work from home with regularity.

</comment><comment><USER44> I have been at home as an independent dev for almost 15 years and I love the flexibility..BUT, there is one thing that work-from-home people almost universally agree is a drag. When work is just a few feet away, it is hard to draw a line from where work ends and life begins. I hate the fact that the first place my kids ever come looking for me is my home office.

</comment><comment><USER45> I have the possibility to work from home as much as I want but I very seldom do since I literally get nothing done. I would be a useless employee in a remote company. Even when I need to work on weekends and no-one is at the office I go there (all alone).

To be honest I feel that most people are like me and that the success stories this thread are not representative.

<comment><USER18> I'm curious about this thought. I wonder if in the post-automation economy, people like you will simply be out of a job. I run a small engineering team and would gladly have them be 100% remote if our current circumstances didn't require a certain amount of on-site work.

Do you lack the motivation to do the work, or do you just not like working at all? Would you work on side projects in your spare time if you could, or do your creative juices only flow at the office?

I worked for 10+ years as an engineer in a traditional office environment. Working from home in my current gig has been eye-opening for me. My productivity is through the roof compared to how I used to be. You'd have to pay me a lot of money to make me want to go back to working in an office again.

<comment><USER46> It is a fallacy that creative people find all work inherently interesting. Specially if you are holding a paid job, there will be a mix of interesting, self-actualizing work, and mere grunt work. You'll thrive doing the former but need to exercise will power to complete the later. And if the mix is unbalanced and geared towards the grunt work type (or your life situation forces you to deplete your will at a higher rate than your average peer) you'll benefit from a more structured environment with less opportunities to goof around.

Another point that happens to me, is that my standard setup is at the office. I don't work enough hours from home to justify replicating my cube at home (and on my own dime), so whenever I end up working from home, there's friction: the monitor is smaller (and wrong aspect ratio), the keyboard layout is slightly different, the chair's not ergonomic, etc). I understand this is not an issue for remote workers, but that may help explain the perceived gap between two camps.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Working from home is a problem when you have a toddler of two running around. I'd imagine that even if I worked remotely I'd go for co-working instead.

<comment><USER48> I work from home with a 3 year old and 4 month old. It really hasn't been an issue for me. As long as you have a place where you can close the door[1] it's fine and it's really nice to be able to see the kids during lunch/break. It's just important to set ground rules: while you are working kids/wife don't interrupt you.

[1] I _do_ need to wear headphones most of the time since it can be loud sometimes :)

<comment><USER47> > set ground rules

Oh wow, I wish I could enforce that ;)

<comment><USER48> At the risk of asking a stupid question...why can't you?!?

If it's kids who are the problem, just lock the door.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I have worked 100% remote for the past 3 years and am way more productive at work and at home.

It takes discipline though to ignore issues at home and keep delivering.

Another key is to find an organization that is `Results Driven` vs politics `I see you in your chair` driven and that everyone there embraces a remote work culture.

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm surprised by the ridiculously broad conclusion (headline) based on the narrow conditions of the experiment and how little emphasis was placed on the factors that lead to success. It's no surprise that work that's extremely limited in scope and may actually benefit from limited collaboration could benefit from remote work.

As a simple example, working on the wrong thing for a few hours can easily have a negative effect on real productivity over the long term. "Amount of stuff produced" is therefore a terrible measure for that type of work, where collaborating continuously can help to cut off unproductive paths at their root.

I don't think there's anything here to suggest that similar results would transfer to more creative work such as software development.

</comment><comment><USER51> I've been working from home for 3 years now. I am part time now, but still manage to get more done than the other people in the office. I use the rest of my time to... work! I work on my own projects in the VR space, which probably nobody would have ever hired me for if I had just applied to jobs.

As other people have mentioned, I can't imagine going back. I've actually looked at going back, gone to interviews and such (I get pinged by recruiters constantly and sometimes I cave and listen to what they have to say). And every time, I'm just struck by how alien everyone's behavior is in the office. It's creepy, and then I remember I used to be like that, too. And then I'm good for another year or two.

</comment><comment><USER52> I have worked for years from home. I'm currently at the first job that requires me to be in the office every day. However, there are no managers here - in fact, they are the ones that are remote while all of us developers get work done.

I actually like being in an office where I can talk with other developers about projects. That is something I missed working remotely as it was harder to tell if I could call someone up and would be interrupting them if we just talked about programming or ideas.

At any rate, I'll be returning to working from home in the near future I think. Even good algorithm talks don't beat time with family.

</comment><comment><USER53> We may not be there yet, but I think a company's ability to efficiently and effectively allow employees to work from home will eventually be predictors of a company's future success.

The company executives may not see the benefits, but my prediction is that as soon as the pendulum has swung and more companies allow working from home than don't (and are successful at it because they've been thinking about it since they have a long-term vision of their company's future), the companies who paid no attention and weren't planning for this inevitable future will quickly become extinct.

</comment><comment> j-c-m I imagine for this article the "office" was a call center bullpen type setup. It is not surprising to see increased productivity due to the reduced distractions of actually having a private personal workspace provided by the _employee_ at home.

To keep costs down it seems most companies now design for maximum bodies per square foot rather than productivity. I really wish companies, especially those with the ability to absorb some extra costs, would actually try to design for productivity and not solely cost savings.

</comment><comment><USER54> Someone finally ran a real study. I wish companies would run such experiments much, much more often.

<comment><USER55> I don't know...

I've been looking through the comments to see if anyone else noticed the fact that the experiment was not a randomized control setup. They've let self- selection bias creep into the results, so I'm wondering how much we can infer from them?

<comment><USER56> "Half the volunteers were allowed to telecommute; the rest remained in the office as a control group."

It's an RCT of people who wanted to work remotely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I love working from home, but having everyone on the team using tools like slack to communicate is essential - I don't think it would work otherwise. The team and managers need a certain level of trust too. It was pretty hard to get "onboarded" initially and start feeling like part of the team but it got better over time thanks to over-communicating on my part and much use of the slack /giphy feature!

</comment><comment><USER58> I have a question. For those working from home, how did you get your job? I'd love a job where I could work free from the distractions of an office. But I'm not a programmer. I'm a copywriter / marketer. And all my remote work has come from freelance gigs. I'd love full time employment with a remote company, but most jobs I see are for programmers. So how did you find remote work?

<comment><USER59> [https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote- job](https://github.com/lukasz-madon/awesome-remote-job)

Many coding jobs, but a lot of other stuff too.

There are several job boards dedicated to remote-only work listed on that page.

<comment><USER58> This is incredible! Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I've had jobs where working from home was the greatest thing, and jobs where being able to shout over to coworkers and have face-to-face conversations is irreplaceable. It depends on the work and the team dynamic. Developers working from home makes a lot of sense in most cases. Trading futures makes absolutely zero sense. There's no one size fits all answer.

</comment><comment><USER61> >Will knowledge and creative workers also be more productive at home?

>The more robotic the work, the greater the benefits, we think.

Certainly don't agree with this. I work from home, and find the lack of distractions _most_ beneficial for creative work. Certainly there are challenges for _collaborative_ work, but those can be overcome, or at least mitigated.

</comment><comment><USER62> I currently work from home, and I find actually starting work is hard for me when there's no-one to force me to get to the office by 9am.

(Then again, on the handful of occasions I have actually worked in the office, I've _really_ noticed the office banter - it's probably on par with whatever distractions I have at home.)

<comment><USER63> I start my day just as if I were going to work. Get up with the alarm, do morning chores, take a shower, dress decently (but not office-nice), sit down and start working.

My first task: send email to someone, preferably a team.

There might be a little web surfing first, but I did that in the office, too.

My work doesn't require set hours. I do it this way simply for the discipline.

<comment><USER62> I feel I could benefit from having a consistent routine like this, though it doesn't help that I work part-time and due to various factors my hours tend to be scattered throughout the week. (Ultimately doesn't really matter for me any more since I'm finishing at my current employer shortly and will be going 9-5 in-person very soon.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> This study was for call center work. That work is easily measured by objective metrics, not particularly creative, and doesn't particularly benefit from serendipitous face-to-face interactions among colleagues. Be careful when extrapolating to software engineering.

</comment><comment><USER65> I absolutely get more done working from home. But after a couple of years of working by myself on project for business who I would communicate with once a week (if) I felt I was getting out of touch with the human race.

I went and got an office job, and it was so nice to get up and go be with other people. Even the office politics was amusing rather than annoying. Even the annoying people were interesting. Now, after nearly a year of that the novelty is wearing off and I'm wanting to be really productive and remove myself from foolish social games again.

My ideal situation would be 2 days a week in the office, 3 at home.

</comment><comment><USER66> I think WFH is great for individual contributors (especially software engineers) that are a fraction of a team that has some people who go into the office every day. It can be a really easy way to let those people focus and be productive without arbitrary hours.

However I have seen what happens at a company that is all-remote and it can be a disaster. My girlfriend worked remote for Cisco for 2 years and almost nothing got done. The latency on all-email communication was too high and you never knew what was going on because nobody had a full picture of the state of the project. It was a total mess.

<comment><USER67> I can't imagine an all remote team that relies on email. I've worked remote my entire career and chat is the lifeblood of a remote company. In essence, the chat server becomes the virtual office. When people sign on in the morning, you know they are there. People say bye before signing off (leaving the office). There's a #watercooler channel for people to have idle chitchat. A project manager can ask a question in the project chat room just as they would the teams open office room, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Anyone work out of a co-working space? Totally recommended?

I been doing the work from home for 2 years now. It's getting a little meh. Love the freedom, but it would be nice to have actual physical co-workers, or something like it.

<comment><USER69> I work out of a co-working space but I also work for myself rather than for a company.

I could work at home but the social monotony would get to me. I need to be around other people shooting the breeze, catching up, networking, or getting help on a programming problem. I'd become too depressed being home alone all the time.

I'd recommend it. It can be pricey though (I pay $400 for a reserved desk in Brooklyn).

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I worked remotely in my previous job for 3 years and noticed team cohesion suffered. There is something about being in close proximity with coworkers help people care more about each other.

</comment><comment><USER71> I work from home 2 days of the week, two of the biggest advantages are:

1) You never get late to work, you are already there. 2) You can work just in your underware.

Disadvantages:

Kids, if you have them, will also demand your attention.

</comment><comment><USER72> I would love to work from home again. I used to do a couple of days from home but now am office-based, a short distance from where I live so the commute isn't too bad.

But I would love to be back at home again.

Anyone who wants a remote-working developer for C++, let me know! I write under OSX/Windows/Linux and also do Android, SQL in various guises and some web stuff, but I prefer native to web - web is in constant flux. I did Qt a long time ago, now it's wxWidgets. I can do C# too if you want it.

</comment><comment><USER73> Data is very interesting but will it be same for all industries?

<comment><USER44> I have a friend who fuels airplanes for UPS, I don't think he is going to get to work from home anytime soon.

<comment><USER74> Teleoperated robots to do aircraft refueling is probably already technologically possible.

<comment><USER75> The window between "teleoperated robots to fuel airplanes being economically viable" and "autonomous robots to fuel airplanes being economically viable" is probably too small for teleoperation to become a big thing in general.

(Be sure to ponder the full meaning of "economically viable". As you say, teleoperated robots to fill gas tanks are already _possible_ today, but clearly they are not _economically viable_ in any but the most expensive of situations because humans are still cheaper.)

<comment><USER76> How about legal liability?

You hire a remote guy to fuel the airplane watching the cameras and gauges and signing off personally on delivering certain amounts to certain planes following certain safety procedures and documentation procedures including everything being automatically recorded. And if there is a screw up then you can initiate legal proceedings (well, not if you outsource, but if you teleoperate in the USA it would at least be possible).

With a fully autonomous robot then the first time there's any problem, the deep pockets robot mfgr will be sued out of existence regardless of having anything to do with the problem other than having deep pockets. Only in business until the first airliner crash, and not a day longer, even if it has nothing to do with fuel.

In a way I'm talking myself out of the idea, because non-teleoperated can't be documented for all eternity like remote work can be documented. So the remote fueler is on camera fueling up a jet without commenting on the obvious metal fatigue crack far in the background that a monday morning quarterback knowing what to look for can see if he ignores the fuel dude's job and zooms in on finding the wing crack... this is a legal problem that non-teleoperated doesn't have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> I like the opportunity to work from home but I'd rather be around people most of the time. Sadly the place I am working at is anal about people being in the office.

</comment><comment><USER78> I can work either from home or from my office. My office is fine but I'm usually more productive in the comfort of my home because I'm less likely to be distracted. An other good thing is that I have more options if I want to take a break. I can pick up the guitar for 10 minutes, enjoy the sun outside, relax on the bed and so on... better than browsing the web where you don't even leave your desk.

<comment><USER79> > I can work either from home or from my office. My office is fine but I'm > usually more productive in the comfort of my home because I'm less likely to > be distracted.

This is definitely different for each individual. For me, I'm more likely to be distracted at home.

> An other good thing is that I have more options if I want to take a break. I > can pick up the guitar for 10 minutes, enjoy the sun outside, relax on the > bed and so on... better than browsing the web where you don't even leave > your desk.

See above, re: distractions.

<comment><USER80> Distractions exist everywhere. For me, at least, there is tangible benefit to throwing frisbee for 10 minutes vs. browsing reddit for ten minutes. I feel more clear-headed and productive after frisbee or doing my laundry. I don't get much out of surfing the web while bored in my office.

Unfortunately, no one lets me bring a frisbee into the office.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> More productive, more focused and healthier lifestyle.

You can live somewhere less urban, and have a happier wife and kids.

If all you need is a computer and a connection, there is no reason to waste time and efficiency in an office environment.

If you can't find the time and money for a real vacation, consider having a working vacation. Spend afternoons on vacation, work in the morning and evening. Its really works!

</comment><comment><USER82> Pffft, ignore that advice big companies. Move along, nothing to see here. Open concept offices with butts-in-the-seats is the only way to go. Don't let them undermine your management authority! /s

As a self employed work at home developer with a distraction free environment, having businesses adopt this sort of thing can only decrease my competitive advantage. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER83> Is there terminology to search for, for jobs which are part remote, part on- site? You would've thought companies would be looking for people happy to work on that basis.

</comment><comment><USER84> No mean to brag, but I retired at 31; under 5 years in sales, working from home. My remote productivity level far exceeded my prior experience in an office.

</comment><comment><USER85> is there a directory or job site somewhere that specifically deals with commpanies with this kind of culture?

I'd LOVE to work at a place which allowed me to work from home most days or which didn't have set office hours, where remote working was part of the culture. It seems hard to find such places.

<comment><USER86> [https://weworkremotely.com/](https://weworkremotely.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> the article points out itself, how biased it is by focusing on a particular kind of work, and one that is very amenable to not just doing from home, but measuring remotely.

the title is a bit of a bold claim in the face of the content...

</comment><comment><USER88> Interesting to see HBR posts thriving on HackerNews.

</comment><comment><USER89> Does anyone have an understanding of whether there are corporate accounting and tax incentives that would explain some of the opposition to remote work?

I suspect there is some incentive for corporations and companies in general to spend money on real estate and offices, even though they would not really be necessary. It would explain things like Yahoo requiring all their remote employees to move to SF even though the city becomes ever less livable. Sure there are reasons to live there, but something seems off, why make people move there? Austin (and Dallas and Houston to a lesser extent) is another good example of there possibly being some kind of corporate tax and accounting incentive really driving this matter. Austin's tech boom is really an artificial concoction that was initiated while Bush was governor to incentivize and attract, and even poach tech firms to Texas and Austin.

I have my suspicions that the tax and accounting regulations are far greater of a force of nature than is recognized regarding WFH and remote work, especially once companies grow to a certain size.

If you think about it. it's absolutely insane that the tech industry is so obsessed with co-locating when, if you get off the fence, you can develop proper management and technology solutions that could make your workforce far more effective and productive. I mean what can you do to enable effective remote working with around $100,000+ in office space costs over a year? It makes no damn sense.

<comment><USER81> Old business culture? Not sure. I have thought about this too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I'd advise against working from home for everyone in compliance with the separation of concerns principle as context switching is not easy at all and it will burden the person with a lot of stuff to sort out with regard to the work/life balance and the mixture of the incompatible job/home environments.

However, I'd definitely vote for and favor a more balanced approach that combines both remote work from a dedicated office that has been set up specifically to handle this type of activity that is independent and detached from the home environment, and the formal workplace to maintain the bond and harmony between team members.

<comment><USER91> I remember reading about a chap who context switched from "home" to "work" by walking round the block as his commute. He was reported as saying it really made a difference to him.

<comment><USER92> That reminds me of this study, "Walking through doorways causes forgetting": [http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470218.2011.571...](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17470218.2011.571267)

Even if you return to the same place, the context switches break your concentration and make you forget things. I guess sometimes that's exactly what you want.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> From TFA: "gave the staff at Ctrip's call center the opportunity to volunteer to work from home for nine months."

There is zero value added to a call center employee from working in proximity to other workers. Actually, that probably has a negative value, since the insane chatter just makes it harder to hear whoever is on the phone. The same isn't necessarily valid for other jobs.

Making a generic conclusion (such as the clickbaity title) from such a limited category of workers is just shitty journalism. Apparently, not even HBR is beyond that...

</comment><comment><USER94> Anybody else getting a Web Script Status 500 - Internal Error?</comment>


Ask HN: How do people work on their side projects with regular full-time jobs? - <AUTHOR>

- I am interested in learning how people manage their time between official commitments and their side projects <comment><USER2> I only have so much energy after waking to get started with anything creative like project design, so it comes down to managing that. One trick that works is waking up at 5 AM to work on a personal project, then going to work at 9 AM. This might lead to being pretty slow at work once afternoon rolls in though. Another way is to do an early workday, 8 to 4 or 7 to 3 even, then take a 20 minute power nap after work. Even a momentary falling asleep can restore a surprising amount of mental energy.

</comment><comment><USER3> For me it has not that hard if you have a lot of passion for what you are building. dworrad's post the other day is a great example of how he does it. It feels like a bit of a obsession - check it out.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4217985>

I am starting to think I have some sort of OCD with this project. Maintaining motivation is the hardest when you get discouraged.

For me I had to give up all my other hobbies. I take care of my family (including 2 kids) do the best I can for my job but try not to work much more than 40 hours, and then its my side project after the kids go to sleep, from 9-1am at least 4 days a week. Wake up early or stay up late. If you are obsessed like I am you will wake up with no help at 4am, which is a great time to code.

</comment><comment><USER4> I like to keep a todo list with time estimates next to each item. In the morning, pick one you'll have plenty of time to finish. Work on it, commit it and go off to work. It's a long game, but it works.

</comment><comment><USER5> This depends on what your full time job is and the scale and intensity of your side job. Make sure that your plate isn't filled up 110% and know that people tend to underestimate the amount of work involved in doing anything...

</comment><comment><USER6> I yesterday documented my struggle in this department while trying to get my live sports commentary site www.commentary.io up and running. It isn't easy when you are a "sole founder"... especially when you have a family!

</comment><comment><USER7> I just do something that wakes me up when I get home and make sure I get a good night's rest (7-8 hours) each and every night.

For me, competitive Starcraft 2 really wakes me up (better than espresso).

</comment><comment><USER8> I have a full time job in a startup doing around 42 hours per week between 8am and 5:30pm and at around 6pm I work on my side project until 1am.

</comment><comment><USER9> Allocate only 2 hours a day on side projects. Stop immediately once you hit the 2-hour mark.

i run a startup and make games part time.

</comment><comment><USER10> Do one thing each day, even if it's just changing the font-size of something. Constant progress, even minute progress, is critical.

</comment><comment><USER11> Stop watching TV

<comment><USER12> Seriously! TV, dvr, Netflix...pure EVIL.The worst enemy of any side project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> one task a day.</comment>


Steam's Big Picture - Play Steam games on TV - <AUTHOR> http://store.steampowered.com/bigpicture/

<comment><USER2> Seems like a very bold, open-ended strategic move for them. I've excited to see what direction they take this in. Also the UI appears leagues better than existing the ones on existing consoles</comment>


And when you call it, you can call it Util: Naming things correctly in code - <AUTHOR> http://hadihariri.com/2012/02/18/and-when-you-call-it-you-can-call-it-util/

<comment><USER2> This is a super-important topic, but this post doesn't give a single example of _good_ naming, and so doesn't contribute much to a discussion.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll post examples gradually. However, the main point here is to _think_ about naming.

<comment><USER2> Yup; I think most HN folks will have enough experience to know naming is crucial, and have lots of opinions about how to do it well (I know I do). Looking forward to the followup, then!

Once you have some examples and strategies -- where people can agree with some, disagree with others... that gets the conversation going.</comment></comment></comment>


Linux Kernel Testing: Intro to kernelci.org - <AUTHOR> http://baylibre.com/intro-kernelci/ <comment><USER2> I was amazed to learn that the Linux kernel supports 1,400 distinct 32-bit ARM targets!

That's ... a scary amount, and it's easy to see that automated testing might be a good thing, there.

I think the combinatorial explosion happens at least in part because even though there's a limited number of actual ARM cores, the peripherals which Linux needs to support are often vendor-defined and thus different for each system-on-a-chip (or at least different for each device series from a particular manufacturer). I didn't dig through the sources to verify this, but I've heard of the problem before, ARM doesn't define a standard way for the CPU core to learn about its peripherals at run-time.

<comment><USER3> Keep in mind that's mainly because the ARM world is not standardized the way the PC world is. In practice the differences between most of these targets will be the very early initialization code and things like the clock hierarchy but beyond that most of the code will be shared across many variants.

Imagine having to use a different kernel every time you upgrade your desktop, that's basically how the ARM world works so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Personally, I find it amazing that a project the size of Linux has relatively few automated tests and testing done by its maintainers, leading to projects such as this (and the LTP, etc.) to come about to actually ensure ongoing quality.

How many other major projects the size of Linux have as little upstream testing?

<comment><USER5> There's a lot of upstream testing, even if not public.

You can bet pretty much every hardware vendor is running some kind of kernel CI internally.

<comment><USER6> Maybe PC hardware vendors has some automated kernel testing. I think it's different with embedded. The SoC company I worked for a couple of years ago didn't have anything like that.

<comment><USER7> That's because SoC companies for the most part simply never update the kernel. Whatever kernel they were using when the chip tapes out is the kernel they're still using when the products hit EOL. Wireless routers with Broadcom 802.11ac are all running a kernel branch from 2010.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This project could use a downloadable script which would automatically compare "some machine you have which runs linux" to hardware configurations currently available within the CI platform to see if it would be a useful contribution.

<comment><USER9> That could be really interesting. Grabbing system configuration from lshw should be relatively simple - what could be more interesting is the backend that would tell you your machine is an interesting one or is already covered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just want to express my appreciation for projects like this and I hope everyone involved receive the recognition they deserve.

</comment><comment><USER11> Whack in a build/regression test for the NVidia driver against the latest kernel sources. I spent so long today trying to get those compiled on Debian against the latest sources, and I feel dumber as a result. Which is probably fair enough, also had a few beers.

</comment><comment><USER12> It is all as it was foretold. The mighty Beowulf cluster reawakens, summoned by its true calling. Servants of the Dark File, bring forth your abandoned and dying devices, that they may be blessed with an IP in this new Mecca of logic and crystal.

<comment><USER13> .........

<comment><USER12> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_cluster)

Wow, looks like the definition got cleaned up a bit over the decades. Back when I was a kid, it was just every computing device the group could get their hands on, networked. Running simple delayed-echo servers, in our case.</comment></comment></comment>


Eviation's Electric-Propelled Commuter Airplane Debuts at Paris Air Show - <AUTHOR> https://www.flyingmag.com/eviation-debuts-alice/ <comment><USER2> Electrical aviation is starting to look like a serious business opportunity; especially for short haul. The premise is very similar to electrical cars: they are a lot simpler to manufacture, the electricity is comparatively cheap (and getting cheaper), the maintenance cost is much lower, and they are a lot simpler and cheaper to operate.

I see a lot of articles pointing out that this does not scale to large aircraft due to various physical constraints. This is both true and irrelevant. The only reason large aircraft exist is that they make better use of a very expensive resource: fuel. Because of their size, they need big airports as well, which is why we have the hub and spoke model where most long distance travel requires traveling to a hub before you can start your journey to another hub where you hop on another spoke (unless the hub was your destination). This makes an already expensive journey even more expensive because you are forced to burn fuel to get to a place from where you can start your journey.

This problem completely goes away with electrical aviation. Big electrical airplanes would still be nice to have. But they are not essential. Mass produced small electrical planes enable people to fly from tiny airstrips; even roof tops if you consider planes with vtol capabilities. The Eviation has enough range (650 miles) that it can compete with most short haul flights.

I live in Germany. This plane can easily service the whole of Germany and many destinations outside of it as well. Better still, it can actually fly to any of the dozens of airports in Germany rather than only the handful of bigger airports that are currently taking most of the domestic travel (e.g. Berlin- Munich is a busy route). This massively improves how quickly you get from any point in Germany to any other point in Germany. It actually competes with both trains and planes for price and speed. A lot of domestic flights here compete on both with high speed rail.

Here's some back of the envelope math. The price of 1 airbus A319 (~110M) pays for around 30-35 Eviations (~3M). An A319 transports carries 160 passengers, 30 eviations can carry 270 passengers. A typical journey for the Eviation will be a fraction of what it cost to fly a single A319. It's tens vs. thousands of euros, i.e. two orders of magnitude. You can fly hundreds of eviations over the same distance for the same price as a single A319 journey (excluding the pilots). The main cost bottleneck is actually the pilots: there won't be enough of them and they cost a lot per hour.

That is of course until we automate them away, which is likely to start happening over the next decades. IMHO this will happen with electrical planes first because they are much simpler to automate. And of course, autonomously flying planes are another thing Eviation is working on.

It's a very logical strategy. I can be off by quite a large factor with these numbers and it would still be an extremely compelling business case. IMHO my numbers are long term actually extremely conservative and there is room for an order of magnitude improvement just through cost savings, already validated research around batteries, etc.

This first generation electrical plane completely destroys the business case for one of the most economical traditional planes flying today. As soon as they start producing this plane in volume, planes like the A319 are a thing of the past. I predict many traditional planes shipping today will be retired years or decades ahead of their currently scheduled end of life for this reason.</comment>


ASP.NET Core 2.2.0-preview1: Endpoint Routing - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/webdev/2018/08/27/asp-net-core-2-2-0-preview1-endpoint-routing/ <comment><AUTHOR> They claim 35% speedup in "real world applications"!

[https://github.com/aspnet/Routing/pull/730](https://github.com/aspnet/Routing/pull/730)</comment>


Tell HN: Apple now require a restore button for non-consumable in-app purchases - <AUTHOR>

Just a heads up that Apple are rejecting apps containing in-app purchases that do not have an explicit restore button.
This leads to a terrible user experience. To implement this you either have to 1. Have an explicit Restore button that does nothing if the user has not already purchased a consumable item.
Or
2. Make an additional server call everytime your user trys to buy an item-ie check if they have already purchased the item, then provide a button to enable them to restore that item if so. <comment><USER2> When your users try to buy an item, the app has to contact the server anyways. Sending one more boolean from the client side and making the server to perform one extra comparison is not costly or hard to implement.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is the user has to re-enter their password with each server call, which will probably reduce the completion rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Are there any user-friendly alternatives to this? What is the problem with implementation no. 2?</comment>


Micro Python: Python for Microcontrollers - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/214379695/micro-python-python-for-microcontrollers

<comment><USER2> This is looks really interesting, I have backed for two, I really to see it out.

fwit, the designer is fairly active on reddit: [http://www.reddit.com/user/dpgeorge](http://www.reddit.com/user/dpgeorge)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for your pledge! Looks like it'll be successfully funded. Can't wait to send you your board!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Insta-backed!</comment>


If Property Rights Are Real, Climate-Destroying Companies Would Be Sued to Death - <AUTHOR> https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/02/if-property-rights-were-real-climate-destroying-companies-would-be-sued-out-of-existence <comment><USER2> Whether to curtail the use of fossil fuels should be determined by legislation. It is known that the use of fossil fuels contributes to global warming, but the public does not believe that banning fossil fuels is worth the cost.</comment>


Converting a Ruby hash to an array and back again - <AUTHOR> http://clevelandflash.blogspot.com/2011/03/picking-up-some-ruby.html

<comment><USER2> Clever but I think:

>> ar = [["a", 100], ["b", 200], ["c", 300], ["d", 400]]

=> [["a", 100], ["b", 200], ["c", 300], ["d", 400]]

>> Hash[ar]

=> {"a"=>100, "b"=>200, "c"=>300, "d"=>400}

Is going to be a bit more practical (and readable) most of the time...</comment>


Tips for Novice Developers (and why you should become a Rubyist) - <AUTHOR> http://www.mutuallyhuman.com/blog/2013/08/06/tips-for-novice-developers-and-why-you-should-become-a-rubyist/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure why, but the word rubyist always irks me. It strikes me as pompous and egotistical. And I've been a ruby developer for 7 years.

<comment><USER3> True, but it gives me the opportunity to call myself a Pythonian, so I'm OK with it for now.

People always come up with words to describe groups of people, Rubyist isn't the worst one people have come up with.

<comment><USER4> hm ... Goer, Golanger ... damn

<comment><USER5> Gopher

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While i agree with the first four points, the first sentence of the "use ruby" bit could not possibly be any more wrong. To quote:

> As you start writing code and realizing how powerful it is you will never > want to install anyone else's crappy module again!

This stands directly in opposition to the DRY principle, which applies to ANY language, not just Ruby. As you get more experienced in developing software you end up using more libraries by other people, because you are easier able to figure out which ones are good and which ones aren't; and also because you're more comfortable with figuring out foreign APIs.

</comment><comment><USER7> Well, that was good a waste of time.</comment>


FAA to lift mobile shut-down rule - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/faa-to-lift-mobile-shut-down-rule-7000021045/?s_cid=e550&ttag=e550

<comment><USER2> Good. If they were actually that dangerous, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on board.

Shutting down cell radios makes sense; as I understand it, a bunch of cellphones moving at a couple hundred miles per hour can do some nasty things to cell towers, but it drives me absolutely insane that flight attendants gripe at me about turning off my Kindle. I usually just turn the backlight off.

<comment><USER3> As a commercial pilot I must say that cell phones and other electronics, have an influence in navigation and comunications. It has evolved over time though, the past generation airliners (like B737-200 and MD80) that didn't have GPS or laser inertial navigation, used a magnetic sensor(it detects the earth magnetic fields and gives the data to the navigation instruments) that was easily disturbed by the first generation of cellphones. It could change your heading indication up to 40 degrees. The worst cases where due to the pilot's mobile. Also cd players and the first portable nintendos used to have a mesurable effect on those planes. Modern airliners are better isolated and shielded, also modern electronics transmit with less watts and are better designed. It has become a smaller problem defenitely. For example the problem with comunications is not a big one, it can be a bit annoying (like when you hear your car radio and the cell phone starts receiving a call), but I haven't hear of any mayor comunication failure or trouble caused by that. The only problem remaining is that the most sensible fase of flight is a low visibility approach with the autopilot engaged. In this mode the airplane is using highly accurate radio signals from the ground station, and radio altimeter readings to guide itself till landing. The frecuencies are very different, but when you have 100 people trying to con ect their cellphones to call home and say that they are landing (while at 200 knots). The phones have to try very hard to connect to the ground antennas. This is not a problem if everything is working properly. But if a cable or a computer is in bad conditions(remember that avionics suffer from physical stress that is not usual to ground equipment: humity, vibration, shocks), that may cause bad signals that may triger a system failure (this is the best case as this way you may go around and try again safely), or just modify signals enough to degrade de autopilot behaviour but not trigger an alarm. Although rare, this has happened and it's been the reason the prohibition has been kept all this time. I suppose that the stadistical and technical study of this faults have led to understanding that this cases are more unusual than they used to be. Also it's a fact that even if you ask people to shut down their electronics, there is always a part of the passengers that simply don't know how to do it (older people), have theirs at the checked luggage, forgot it on with the laptop(the rest of us), or simply ignore the crew and hide the phone. So effectively enforcing the prohibition was impossible. I still recommend to set everything in flight mode at least for take off and landing, as we the pilots usually do (please don't tell anyone!), that way you'll also save battery.

<comment><USER4> Seems to me the answer is to put a cellphone "tower" in the plane so the phones all connect to that at low power and stay connected to one place. Meanwhile the plane itself can relay to ground via more sophisticated means designed for flight.

<comment><USER5> Or even not relay, depending. The point is to keep them at minimum power, not necessarily to allow phone calls.

I figure that if cellphones actually mattered, the FAA would have long since required such devices in airplanes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The thing that gets me about these rules is what an insane threat to national security it would be if they were actually necessary. If anyone really thought that mobile devices could significantly interfere with instruments on an airplane, they should 1) raise hell over fixing our obviously broken planes, and 2) demand that we put some effort into actually making sure that people are turning their cell phones off (for instance, by actually checking, rather than asking politely).

<comment><USER7> It's a matter of trade-offs of convenience vs "better safe than sorry". It's not a binary either-or decision. Just like with lithium batteries, which can still cause nasty fires. Yet they aren't banned because if they were, it would be a huge inconvenience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This looks like it will change little. You'll still not be able to listen to music on your device (even if the music is local to the drive) during takeoff and landing.

The only change is that you can leave your phone in airplane mode instead of having to power it down.

I don't know anybody that actually listened to the flight attendants. Most people just put their phones in airplane mode anyway.

So basically nothing actually changes. It would be nice to be able to listen to my music without having to hide my headphones so I don't get yelled at.

At least on Virgin they don't bother you because they just assume you're using their entertainment system (which I'd imagine generates more interference then whatever your little device does). I guess on their system you have to watch advertising though - makes it worth it to them.

<comment><USER9> Huh. Why would you not be able to listen to music in airplane mode? I always do it on my phone, as I have them on my SD card. Now with the new rule when you will be able to keep the phones in airplane mode while take off and landing, I should be able to listen to music without interruption.

<comment><USER10> Taxi, takeoff and landing are the most critical parts of a flight. If something goes wrong and you can't hear instructions, chaos etc because your distracted with your music then you are a danger to yourself and your seatmates around you.

<comment><USER6> Is that actually an official position though? I've only ever heard it as post hoc rationalization. There might be a bit of sense to it, but on the other hand, it's not hard to jostle someone into paying attention, as I'm sure your neighbors would. They don't prevent you from going to sleep before takeoff or landing, and that's at least as difficult a context switch.

<comment><USER11> At least in Canada, you're only allowed to have headphones on if they're earbuds (easy to quickly remove) and connected to the in-flight sound system (so you still hear announcements). I haven't paid attention to the onboard safety dance in ages, so I don't recall what it is elsewhere.

<comment><USER12> Justification being that earbuds don't get in the way as much as headphones.

There is literally no end to the inanity of bureaucracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> All of these rules usually drive me crazy. I'm a private pilot and I'll take up friends and coworkers for fun all the time. The most common question before we take off is "Do I need to turn off my phone?" which I usually reply with "I leave mine on for backup GPS". I do understand the need to stow away items to prevent injuries if anything were to suddenly happen during takeoff and landing, but telling people to turn off their devices because, and I've heard this before, "they will interfere with the navigation systems" is just false.

<comment><USER14> All these rules are there for a reason. I completely agree with you that it is perfectly all right to leave electronics on when you are giving rides. Even in the very unlikely chance that a device that your friend has is faulty, and by some wild chance it self-excited at an entirely wrong frequency and started transmitting wildly at CTAF, so what... It is a perfect day, and you'll land no problem.

But airline pilots are routinely flying IMC. They do want their radio aids working. And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using. Who knows. May as well " interfere with the navigation systems" at a wrong moment.

<comment><USER15> _And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using._

Except that faulty device is already on the plane, and the lowest estimate seems to be there's about a 1-in-3 chance it's powered on already, despite regulations saying it needs to be off.

As many people are at pains to point out, if there were sufficient risk to justify action, then we would not be needing to have a debate and point to anecdotes (of which there are some in this discussion) from commercial pilots who once experienced an equipment problem and said "well, I heard maybe a cell phone could cause that". We would know beyond question that something's up from the corresponding number of serious incidents.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I will be beyond happy to be able to listen to my own music, read off my iPad, and just begin the whole process of ignoring the goings-on in the flight. Travel will be so much better without the useless electronics rules.

Now to get rid of the TSA...

</comment><comment><USER17> Isn't this mainly an FCC restriction? [1]

I thought the main idea was to prevent phones from constantly jumping between towers... does the FAA have much to do with this in reality?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft)

<comment><USER18> >I thought

See, it is one of the problems caused when authorities lie to people.

>the main idea was to prevent phones from constantly jumping between towers.

Cell tower interference is the only reason that's ever been offered that even passes the giggle test, but even the FCC now is telling the FAA to ease up on the silly rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Good. These rules are ridiculous and not founded in reality. No consumer communication device is going to cause harmful interference with avionics or communications equipment, especially in modern planes with double redundancy and heavy shielding. These rules, just like many others, are rooted in nothing more than tradition and superstition.

</comment><comment><USER20> long overdue, everytime i fly i probably see 50% of the people NOT turning off their phones. even more painful is seeing the flight attendant try to actually explain why people need to shut off their devices

<comment><USER21> Yeah, I understand the logic behind _" The FCC/FAA cannot test every single device for airplane use"_ but as far as I can tell so many people ignore this rule that if it really were a problem, airplanes would be dropping out of the sky like bricks every day. Many, if not most, people ignore the rule, so it probably isn't a big deal in reality.

<comment><USER22> The issue is when shit hits the fan then will you be able to depend on communications with air traffic control? Other people will be reaching for their phones at the same time, surely radio congestion is a real concern.

Or it used to be.

<comment><USER21> I strongly suspect that cellphone networks falling over because too many people are trying to call their families are not going to stop a pilot from talking with air traffic control. Maybe I'm wrong there, but I really don't think I am.

Regardless, that is what 'airplane mode' is for. Having the device on but not the radio isn't really about that.

<comment><USER22> Maybe the airlines/the FAA found out how to turn airplane mode on remotely.

<comment><USER21> I doubt they would dare. That would impact first responders as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Strange. I thought the reason for shutting off your phone was so you were more likely to pay attention to wtf is going on. You know, for safety procedures etc.

<comment><USER24> They never bother you if you're reading the inflight magazine though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> When I've been lucky enough to fly private, they have not once said a peep about turning off my phone, which I'm sure they would have if they were legitimately concerned about safety. Of course, the service doesn't work at altitude, so I tend to put it in airplane mode anyway just to avoid the battery drain of it constantly searching for a signal.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm glad this is finally happening. I have had a number of very poor experiences with flight attendants just because they think that something I've got is turned on. Most of them demand to see the unplugged end of my earbuds if I'm ever wearing them, or stay to watch me power something down.

<comment><USER18> Tell them you have unbearable anxiety during takeoff, and are liable to have another panic attack / projectile vomiting / crap yourself incident. If they want us to suffer their lies, they may as well suffer ours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Well, playing Words with Friends is still not allowed. Of course, that becomes next to impossible to prevent. I'm not sure why the transmitters need to be disable because in reality many won't be.

<comment><USER7> They want as many transmitters as possible off to reduce the _chance_ of interference. With in-flight Wifi and picocells it will be possible to have everyone connected without having lots of cell phones trying to connect to base stations far away using high power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> News like this makes me think there's a sliver of hope for America. (Then again the article makes it sound like they'll still want you to put your phone into airplane mode.)

<comment><USER5> Switching it to airplane mode makes sense, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Not long ago, there was a piece on the local news about a big lightning storm and how a plane was hit by lightning and they had a guy on from the FAA saying how it is nothing to worry about and that planes are designed such that a lightning strike would not harm it. So, if I am to understanding this correctly... A commercial airliner is in danger from my phone with a 3.7V battery but a million volt lightning strike will not harm anything? hmmmm, that does not add up, sorry. About time they drop this obviously ridiculous rule. Now please, the shoes off at the airport, come on.

</comment><comment><USER30> I thought airplane mode was used for the entire flight. Does anyone turn their iphone completely off for takeoff?? or their macbook for that matter?

</comment><comment><USER31> Wow, this is so much more prohibitive than what we have in Europe. I can not remember being asked to switch my phone off it had an airplane mode.

</comment><comment><USER32> Does putting my iPhone into "Airplane Mode" automagically disable the NSA bugging processes?

</comment><comment><USER33> This is a bad decision by the FAA. Do you know the most dangerous phase of flight? It's takeoff. The next most dangerous phase? Landing. It's a good idea to have everyone put their devices away for the first and last five minutes of the flight -- just in case quick action is required by passengers who, without headphone cords and loud entertainment, stand a better chance of following instructions.

A drunken asshole on a plane is irritating. A cell-wielding drunken asshole on a plane is unbearable.</comment>


JQuery SSL Certificates Expire - <AUTHOR> https://code.jquery.com/jquery-1.10.2.js

<comment><USER2> This reminds me of a Microsoft research paper*

"It's hard to blame users for not being interested in SSL and certificates when (as far as we can determine) 100% of all certificate errors seen by users are false positives."

* [http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/hh288087.aspx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/hh288087.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not use Google's CDN?

[https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.m...](https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.min.js)

<comment><USER4> I am some kind of weird mutant because I consider having external javascript on my website to be an embarrassment for anything bigger than a hobby project -- but 99% of the universe behaves otherwise.

<comment><USER5> That's because the other 99% understands how browser caching works. If you use JQuery.com, Google, or Microsoft's CDNs then MOST of the time users won't have to download a JQuery/Boostrap/etc library as the browser would already have an unexpired cache of it.

For example, the OP's link's cache will expire (theoretically) in the year 2079. So if a user visited ANY page that utilises JQuery v1.10.2 they already have it. That is a HUGE win. It is an even huger win for mobile (e.g. for small sites you could cut your network traffic in half, which in turn increases loading speed).

It is also trivial to set it up so the page tries the CDN first and if that fails then grab a local copy e.g.

<script src="//code.jquery.com/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script> <script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="lib/jquery-1.10.2.js">\x3C/script>')</script>

<comment><USER6> Would just using another CDN be just as safe?

<comment><USER5> No, no particular reasons. It is just the safest fallback. Presumably if a user is even able to run that script (since you yourself are hosting it) the library would also be available (i.e. either both are down or neither).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Would the standard local js fallback pattern solve this?

<script>window.jQuery || document.write('<script src="js/jquery-2.0.0.min.js">\x3C/script>')</script>

<comment><USER8> Indeed! it's shipped as standard in html5 boilerplate code [https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/blob/c3a72ff882104...](https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/blob/c3a72ff882104a1abc6ed05f5ca3eabb11c08a51/index.html#L25)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This brought down our website. Lesson learned, host your own JavaScript.

<comment><USER9> Or use a CDN you have more trust in, like Google's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, how can a prominent internet library that advises its users to use this server make such an avoidable rookie mistake...

<comment><USER10> Well, because chances are they gave the job of renewing the certificates to the rookie, and he may not have known how to do it, or raised the issue multiple times and nobody knew the implications of it. I know the last place I worked at, I mentioned that the certificates were expiring, and I needed to pay to renew them, yet they didn't seem to care until our customers couldn't connect anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> CloudFlare CDN: [http://cdnjs.com/libraries/jquery](http://cdnjs.com/libraries/jquery)

I use to use the Google CDN but cdnjs.com has a huge amount of javascript libraries hosted on it and it is usually updated faster.

</comment><comment><USER11> Why you guys talking about minuses of jQuery? Donate some bucks to jQuery creators instead.

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's a post on stack overflow from July 30, 2012. Looks like the same thing happened 2 years ago. Not sure why they renewed it for only 1 year again considering it's expired twice in 2 years.

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11726451/ajax-call-to- res...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11726451/ajax-call-to-rest-api-in- jquery-no-longer-works-caused-by-expired-ssl-certifica)

</comment><comment><USER13> Are there any proposals for a local CDN-like caching system capable of handling these sorts of "universal resources"?

I understand the difficulties would be many (trusted sources, versioning, etc.) but I bet it would have a huge impact on the overall web's bandwidth consumption if a page could say "load standard jQuery v1.10.2 on this page, if not cached find it here or here".

</comment><comment><USER14> Is there a public acknowledgement of the problem?

<comment><USER15> [https://twitter.com/jquery/status/494922194351181824](https://twitter.com/jquery/status/494922194351181824)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> [http://code.jque.re/](http://code.jque.re/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Any "big" website is broken because of this?

<comment><USER18> eBay was down earlier, but I have no idea if this was the reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> just took down our site - can't sign up users

</comment><comment><USER20> Good news! They renewed the certificate...... For one year.

 _facepalm_

</comment><comment><USER21> please fix asap!

<comment><USER22> Wouldn't this be solved by hosting it on your own site?

<comment><USER23> I assume that will work,but it will introduce two problems.

1\. Keep a local copy means you will be the one paying for the bandwidth to serve it.

2\. You will have to manually update your local copy everytime upstream makes improvements.

Having things locally increases reliability but it carries its own costs.

<comment><USER24> How is getting upstream "improvements" without having a chance to test them a good thing?

<comment><USER4> "Users want and demand a rich computing experience."[1]

[1] [http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.85.html#subj6](http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.85.html#subj6)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Man Who Turned Night into Day - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-man-who-turned-night-into-day <comment><USER2> The project website of the designer is cool:

[http://src.space.ru/inform-e.htm](http://src.space.ru/inform-e.htm)

The final line is class:

"We, as developers of large space-based structures, hope that in the future we will not only vex astronomers with our extremist experiments but we will also be able to provide scientists with unique tools for real exploration of the farthest corners of the Universe, as well as serve our civilization here on Earth in need and through the hard times."</comment>