If you work at one of these companies and are frustrated by the decision to return to the office, I encourage you to seriously consider leaving to pursue a remote-first career. Not only to send a message, but also because there are many great remote opportunities out there right now.
Ironically I had this battle with Google pre-COVID back in 2019. I was worn down by my commute and itching for a change of environment, but I liked my team and my project. I figured I’d push for full remote since the sell seemed obvious: either I stop working for you and you get zero value from me, or you let me work remotely and you continue to get value from me (more value, I argued). I put forth a list of concessions to address their concerns (I’ll commit to stable online hours, I’ll create a virtual desk in the form of an always-on voice or video call, I’ll forfeit remote if my performance rating is anything below “exceeds expectations”). After weeks of back and forth meetings, the final response was: we can’t give you full remote because then everyone will want it. How about 3 days in 2 days out?
I left a month later, did some traveling, then started working as a remote freelancer. Despite no free food, no benefits, no in-office massages, I have zero regrets. It’s been one of the best decisions I’ve ever made for my overall well-being. And most recently I took a full-time position at a fully remote company (as in no offices at all) with better comp and benefits than what I had at Google.
The more we actually leave to pursue remote, the more these opportunities will arise.
DM me if your company is hiring! I’m happy where I’m at (I left my previous workplace for the same reasons as you mentioned, and now work fully-remotely), but I’m always open to new opportunities. My current company is not fully-remote; my team is, but others are hybrid.
> And most recently I took a full-time position at a fully remote company (as in no offices at all) with better comp and benefits than what I had at Google.
Really? What company pays more than Google and is full remote like that? I’m not saying that they don’t exist but the $400k bar is hard for most remote companies to swallow.
How are you getting paid more than Google if they're a private company? Are they paying $400k liquid? Monopoly money stocks cannot be factored in as real liquid comp unless you can actually liquidate it. If this is a known company to IPO in a year or something then maybe you can make an argument but... I don't think they're comparable, IMO.
Yes, liquid comp (salary+bonus) exceeds my total Google comp (salary+bonus+equity). I should qualify this by saying I left Google as an L4 SWE and I'm starting at this company as an engineering manager, so that factors in. But FWIW I got an offer for a tech lead position at another all-remote company, and it matched my Google total comp with just salary+bonus as well.
Comparing a few dozen cherry-picked headlines over 30+ years to a specific warning by 14,000 scientists is hardly apples to apples.
Also, CEI claims the ozone hole was climate alarmism and nothing bad actually happened, but that’s because scientists warned us and we took action. Even the chart CEI cites shows the hole stopped growing and leveled off. But apparently because it didn’t disappear completely, our actions were futile?
For people getting hung up on the apples to oranges analogy: imagine you're a farmer. You're hearing reports that there's a huge surplus of oranges and everyone is cutting production. You have a lot of orange trees, so you're understandably upset by this and decide to look into it. Some journalists, politicians, and your uncle Jimmy say it's all overblown—there are about as many apples as there are oranges on the market this year. No surplus, no need to cut production.
Then Agricultural American puts out an article showing that data on oranges is being reported by farmers as oranges are picked, whereas data on apples is being estimated based on much fewer reports. The conclusion is that the apples-to-oranges comparison should be taken with a grain of salt.
This is in addition to reports that show orange yields are likely underreported based on overall measures of fruit on the market[1], as well as anecdotal reports of fruit storage being overwhelmed by oranges[2].
Ok I think we can go ahead and report this analogy as another COVID-19-related death.
The point was comparing reported COVID deaths to statistically extrapolated flu deaths is apples to oranges. What you quoted was a comparison of reported deaths to reported deaths.
I think comparing just reported deaths is probably even worse, the rate of undercounting of flu deaths and undercounting of covid deaths (in a pandemic with a ton of testing / heightened observation) is not going to be comparable.
> Anyone who has driven with autopilot, how quickly might it react to a perceived obstacle? Would it take a hard turn into a median faster than a person could reasonably react if it thought there was something in the road or that the road took a hard left?
The only thing my car has ever abruptly/unexpectedly done was brake, usually in response to an overpass it mistook as a stopped car. It's happened maybe 10-20 times in 10,000 miles. Not enough to cause a rear end collision or even an angry honk. I've always had time to take over.
It's never taken a hard turn. The only times it catastrophically failed were when I knowingly put it in confusing situations: winding roads, poorly marked lanes, city driving, etc. In those cases I always have a death grip on the wheel, and the software seems to literally loosen its hold when it's feeling uncertain.
For every tragedy, there are tragedies avoided. I can attest to a few. In the last 10,000 miles, Autopilot has: safely swerved to avoid a car that would have sideswiped me, preemptively braked after detecting the 2nd car ahead (not visible to me) had slammed on its brakes, and avoided colliding with a completely stopped vehicle in the center lane of the freeway.
And FWIW I've never felt misled about Autopilot's capabilities. I started off skeptical and it's since earned my partial trust in limited scenarios. Ironically its hiccups actually make me more attentive since, ya know, I don't want it to kill me.
How many accidents did you have per 10k miles in your last car? I've never had an accident in the last 200k miles, across three cars; none of which had anything more advanced than regular cruise control.
Zero accidents in 200k miles, so "tragedies avoided" was probably the wrong way to put it. My point is: for every one tragedy, there are hundreds of little ways Autopilot makes everyone on the road safer.
In the last 10,000 miles I had no accidents. In fact, I had none in the last 50,000 miles. It is a big question if any of what you mention here would be as much as a touch, if you did not have autopilot in the first place.
That's fair. In ~200k miles of driving I've also had zero accidents so maybe it's a stretch to call these things 'tragedies avoided'. But the point stands that Autopilot does little things every day to improve safety, but they get little media coverage since they're mundane and boring.
Before owning a Tesla I did feel like Autopilot was overhyped, but I now realize that's more because of media coverage than anything Tesla is actively conveying. The vehicle software actively encourages driver attentiveness. Moreover when you actually experience Autopilot, it becomes abundantly clear that it can't drive unassisted.
> Moreover when you actually experience Autopilot, it becomes abundantly clear that it can't drive unassisted.
I think it's different: On long stretches of highway, it actually can drive mostly unassisted. It can't drive unassisted in city traffic or in construction sites, but I totally understand why people would overrate its capabilities. In clear and good conditions, it's actually more than a simple drive assistant.
> just don't go telling people that it can drive unassisted.
No one does. Literally no one. No owner, not Tesla themselves, not their website, not their sellers. Why do people keep bringing this up. Everybody knows it is not full self-driving, yes we all know, yes and? Where does this zealotry come from?
Their marketing for for a long time structured such that you got the idea that is was a literal autonomous driving ability. They've only toned it down after multiple accident, and I'm sure it's the reason so many people still believe it to this day.
So the "problem" you referring to is solved? Their marketing is good now? I just think that there is no reason keep repeating the old things then that are not relevant anymore, that don't even refer to anything anymore and only create a lot of confusion.
(Let's just assume it was a problem, even though I don't ever remember being fooled by it or seing any commercial or anything without a disclaimer "NOT FULLY AUTONOMOUS SELF-DRIVING, REQUIRES DRIVER ATTENTION".)
Autopilot is not a misleading name actually. You, the press and others just have ingrained a false definition of the word. "An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of an aircraft, marine craft or spacecraft without constant manual control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace human operators, but instead they assist them in controlling the vehicle."
If everyone defines Autopilot as an automatic system, shouldn't the definition in the dictionaries be updated? That was a rhetorical question, because it happens all the time.
Besides, Tesla claim that it can drive you unassisted on the highway, so they are very much coining that definition as well.
Are you making Tesla inc responsible for videos that some other people put up on the internet? How would you even propose to police this, to make it illegal to use a car in a video unless the usage is somehow approved by the car manufacturer?
- Autopilot has an option for "full self driving capabilities" (with lots of promises for the future and an unclear description what it actually can do right now)
- People buy a Tesla and indeed seem to have a self-driving car if they sleep at the wheel
- Tesla doesn’t attempt to make it right that this shouldn’t be done as far as I can tell
- Some people believe that Teslas drive themselves mostly.
Is Tesla directly responsible for these videos? Not directly, but at least they benefit from a highly suggestive product.
Could they do more to reduce the suggestive marketing? Absolutely. Do they want to? Probably not. Should they? I don’t know. That is what we’re discussing here.
I have a bit of a background with medical devices. For these, you have to make it absolutely clear what the device is for and what not. You also have to have a post market surveillance system that monitors how people use or abuse your medical device. From that perspective, Tesla could be doing more to have their driving assistant be perceived in a more realistic way.
Similar story here. 29, had been working at a big tech company for almost 4 years. Didn’t really enjoy the work, definitely didn’t enjoy the 1 hour commute. Tried to convince my manager to let me work remotely but was rejected, so I decided to take the leap and quit* . I didn’t have a specific plan for what I wanted to do. I just knew I wanted to do some traveling, work on passion projects, and cultivate some new hobbies.
It’s been 2 months and I have zero regrets. In that time I started and finished a video project I had put off for 8 months, started playing drums, and just finished a month of traveling the US and Europe. I still don’t know what I want to do long term, but I’ve never felt more empowered to figure it out. Do it!
* Disclaimer: I have an open offer from my old company to come back any time (same role same compensation), so that took a lot of the pressure off of the decision. You should see if you can negotiate something similar with your job.
As a native of Gainesville, FL (where Grooveshark is based), this is really sad news. Certainly they made mistakes, but what few see is how much they contributed to the tech community here. Their CTO has personally mentored many companies in the area, and they have a presence at pretty much every tech-related event. I can't think of any other company within a 100-mile radius that can fill that role now that they're gone. Hopefully they'll spin off some new businesses in the area. Otherwise this will be a huge blow to Gainesville's already struggling tech and startup communities.
> Well, the flipside is, let's face it, their business was pretty darn shady... not much a role model for other up-and-coming entrepreneurs.
I'll be frank: I don't see Grooveshark's business as inherently more shady than some of the other "act first, get permission later" startups that are lauded both in the press and on HN on a regular basis.
For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of those companies either, but I find it weird that the overall sentiment towards Gooveshark seems to be negative, when there are many other companies that blatantly and openly violate the law as well.
And furthermore, while things didn't work out for Grooveshark, it's pretty clear that Grooveshark (or at least business/products like it) have been the reason for services like Spotify and Rdio. I think it's pretty clear that we wouldn't have music streaming services if it weren't for the long line of services operating at the fringes, like TPB, Grooveshark, Napster, etc. So even if they ended up failing as a company, the gap that they sought to fill a decade ago has been mostly filled by services like Spotify and Rdio[0].
All that said, I agree with this statement:
> But I'd rather laud businesses who manage to combine cool technology with an ethical, sustainable business model.
I just don't think Grooveshark is anything close to the worst offender.
[0] Services which, I might add, have been financed by the record industry itself.
Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to, but... :)
That said, I think the answer to your puzzlement is pretty simple: every situation is different.
For example, I don't much sympathize with taxi medallion monopolies. While I understand how they evolved, today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience. But that disruption has happened because of companies essentially violating existing regulations on taxi services.
On the other hand, I look at a business like GS, which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content.
Of course, there's an ironic counterpoint here: were it not for the Groovesharks of the world, it's possible demand would never have been generated that now supports legal alternatives (in the same way that I'd claim music piracy is one of the reasons the iPod was ever brought to market).
> which generated its revenues by selling subscriptions to a service that dispensed content it did not produce, without compensating artists for the privilege, and I see nothing more than free riding on the backs of people who did the work to produce that content.
Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a hypothetical deus ex machina?)
> today it's clear that the existing taxi business model needed to be disrupted in order to improve the consumer experience.
I very strongly disagree with this premise, though perhaps that's getting into a different debate.
> Looking around here, I'm not sure what negative sentiment you're referring to
I wasn't referring just to the comments on here, FWIW.
Would you have a problem with it if they gave it away for free (and didn't have to worry about covering their operating costs, via a deus ex machina?)
That's a good question... I honestly don't know!
I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists.
About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to.
But again, that's my intellectualizing a position I can't honestly explain.
> I'd definitely have less of a problem with it... which is, I realize, pretty dumb as that doesn't alleviate the harm to the artists.
> About the only intellectual justification I can come up with is that, as a free service, it's easier to position something like that as a way to discover artists. I think, by selling a subscription, their customers would be more likely to view their consumption as legitimate, and so wouldn't feel compelled to later turn around and buy the music they were listening to.
Well, think of it this way: that's exactly what public libraries already do - their funding comes from tax dollars, so they don't need to turn an operating profit
Actually, public libraries are arguably worse, because tax revenues tax not just the consumers, but the artists themselves. Not only do they give artists' work away for free to consumers, but artists are actually forced to pay for others to access their work for free!
Yeah, but when it comes to libraries there's a public-good element to their activities, as they provide access to those materials for those who otherwise may not be able to afford them.
In addition, a library, as a source of physical copies, can't lend and re-lend the same content over and over. Which is why, of course, ebook lending programs at libraries are often limited to a certain number of copies... there's an attempt to apply that same restriction to digital content.
Lastly, the lending is always time-limited, unlike digital services.
> Yeah, but when it comes to libraries there's a public-good element to their activities, as they provide access to those materials for those who otherwise may not be able to afford them.
How is that any different from free services like Grooveshark, The Pirate Bay, Napster, etc.?
But.. they have access to libraries with computers... More seriously, most of the world doesn't have easy access to libraries like US or some other developed countries while they do have access to decent internet.
You might be surprised how many poor do have computer/internet access. Different regions look different, even within the U.S., and there are many different modalities of living amongst the poor.
There are laws that protect taxi companies and laws that protect music companies. For whatever reason you sympathize more with the disruption of one vs the other.
> Do you understand how compulsory licensing works? Do you really believe no indie artist has ever collected royalties on their music?
Yes, I do understand how licensing works. The RIAA collects royalties on all music, whether or not the artist is signed to one of their labels[0].
Then, the artist has to register with the RIAA (technically, SoundExchange) to get paid, and if the RIAA is in a good mood, they may decide to pay the artist. Or they may decide to keep some or all of the money they collected on behalf of the artist[1].
Again, this applies not just to artists who are signed to a major label, but to independent artists who have no association with the RIAA whatsoever.
Meanwhile, the RIAA files lawsuits on the grounds that the artists (read: the RIAA) is losing money due to filesharing, and when they receive a settlement, they pay literally none of that money to the artists they claimed were harmed, and instead spend that money on... more lawsuits[2].
> The RIAA collects royalties on all music, whether or not the artist is signed to one of their labels[0].
Whenever there's an inflammatory post like this on the Internet that implies obvious injustice, it behooves us to do a little more research. As with most such articles posted around here, there's always another side of the story. A collection of comments from Slashdot, of all places, that explains this:
I completely agree with you. Hopefully something will come to fill the space that Grooveshark left, but Grooveshark did a lot for the tech community there. GroovesharkU, presentations, events, etc. They'll definitely be missed.
First Liger, now Grooveshark. I only have a semester left but a large portion of the Gainesville I know and love has vanished pretty quickly in the last month :(
Ironically I had this battle with Google pre-COVID back in 2019. I was worn down by my commute and itching for a change of environment, but I liked my team and my project. I figured I’d push for full remote since the sell seemed obvious: either I stop working for you and you get zero value from me, or you let me work remotely and you continue to get value from me (more value, I argued). I put forth a list of concessions to address their concerns (I’ll commit to stable online hours, I’ll create a virtual desk in the form of an always-on voice or video call, I’ll forfeit remote if my performance rating is anything below “exceeds expectations”). After weeks of back and forth meetings, the final response was: we can’t give you full remote because then everyone will want it. How about 3 days in 2 days out?
I left a month later, did some traveling, then started working as a remote freelancer. Despite no free food, no benefits, no in-office massages, I have zero regrets. It’s been one of the best decisions I’ve ever made for my overall well-being. And most recently I took a full-time position at a fully remote company (as in no offices at all) with better comp and benefits than what I had at Google.
The more we actually leave to pursue remote, the more these opportunities will arise.