Quarterly (or less often) is every 3 months. And at least all the senior people I work with already travel a lot more often that that under normal circumstances.
People can and should absolutely pick the jobs that work for them. And that may include positions where you go into an office daily and rarely travel. But, traveling to an off/on-site every few months for a work week is probably one of the costs you pay if you want to be remote.
If you want a position that is 100% remote that never requires you to physically leave your home, you're welcome to look for such. But don't expect a lot of options at a well-paying tech job. Unless you can do something as a remote consultant.
> If you want a position that is 100% remote that never requires you to physically leave your home, you're welcome to look for such.
Every job I've had from 2010 to 2021 has been like this. Some had optional but not required in person meetups, some had no meetups. These jobs are not hard to find if you have a good reputation for being effective remotely.
I don't disagree. But being well-known as a good 100% remote worker will be a high bar for a lot of people. (As is, at least your implication, of relatively short-term stints.) Most of my jobs have been in the ~10 year range.
It seems very unlikely that this would lead to value based pricing.
On the contrary: with async WFH + everyone-a-contrator, the supply of work will become much more homogeneous and undifferentiated, which will lead to commoditization.
Doesn’t mean prices will converge to minimum wage! But bargaining power will shift in favor of the buyer (i.e. the businesses)
There are entire classes of problems where a group of n persons working effectively together will produce a much better solution than 1 single person on an island (where n > 1).
In those situations, white boarding and deep dive are useful activities.
Business owners would absolutely love it if you could just run a complex (high value-add, high margin) business by only getting a bunch of commodity developers just pulling JIRA tickets from a heap, quietly humming away.
Reality is that, collaboration is important and is required in order to create non trivial products, and thus the margin to pay for the “people doing real work”.
I agree collaboration is very important. What's interesting to me though is that very early in my career (pre ubiquitous video conferencing), I worked for a large multi-site corp. Me and another developer were the only developers in the local office, yet somehow we were able to collaborate using phone calls and email to build some pretty cool software with other team members in various offices around the US.
I'm not saying that digital tools are always perfect replacements, but there is a large gradient between a single person on an island and sitting shoulder to shoulder at a fold out table (which I have also done).
Put another way, he forgot to get back to the guy whose project/hosting space his company was using, for a whole month, and he came back with a classy response and decent amount of detail. Everybody wins. Except the people who think there's a court in session here and are worried us plebians are putting _CEOs of companies_ on trial
Atleast put some effort into reading all the material if you want to shame somebody.
1) Initial email was sales pitch that did not touch the problem at all. Which retool responded to by the way.
2) CDN is hardcoded into the JS library. Why would you even do that and then shame people? If it’s against the ToS then you need people point to the ToS first. It’s the author’s fault here.
3) MIT license. How many times do we have to go through this. Retool could just fuck off but even before this witch hunt began, they were already donating.
4) Some human communication explaining the problem wouldn’t hurt. Personally I’m more likely to turn down using faker.js now.
> CDN is hardcoded into the JS library. Why would you even do that and then shame people?
It’s worth noting that before the fakercloud.com URLs were hard-coded into the library, the library was hard-coding a different service’s S3 URLs (uifaces.co) and only stopped when they became inaccessible:
So it seems a little unfair to complain that Retool are embedding URLs to your CDN when this library was doing the same thing to UI Faces a few months ago.
This is a very good overview of the situation. It's sad how Retool's name was dragged through the mud for daring to use an MIT licensed open source project.
They still need to be dragged a bit for copying someone's project. There is nothing against it in the license, but it is still pretty crappy to copy someone's offering and offer it up for free. Especially when you built your free offering on the back of the product you are killing.
I disagree. If you don't want anyone just come by, copy your product and offer it for free, don't release it under MIT. There is no "bro code" when it comes to software licenses.
By its very nature, the "bro code" refers to a "code" that doesn't actually exist, which makes your comment quite ironic. On measures of aptness, that makes it a comparison that's not apposite at all, but instead opposite.
It's generally considered bad form to privatize OSS for your own gain, whether there's a price tag on it on day 1 or not. Ex. VLCs issues over the years
I am surprised at the outrage and the choice of adjectives in this thread.
Retool is using faker.js in their app, which is MIT. It also looks like the URLs to fakercloud.com CDN are hardcoded in the library [1] so I doubt this was intentional from the Retool dev.
They even have a shout out for faker.js in the “How we built this” box [2]
Using the fakercloud CDN is the only thing that retool is doing that seems wrong; if those URLs are coded into the library itself, than that's faker'js' mistake, not retool's. Sounds like it could be easily fixed with some clear communication.
