>All things being equal, if a person works remotely, apparently they're more likely to trend reclusive.
The existence of families and housemates reveals this to be a false dichotomy: either you're spending in-office time with coworkers or you don't like being around any people, seems to be the claim.
Part of the study specifies remote workers living alone. So it appears the focus of the study excludes those fortunate enough to have family or housemates.
But I do agree that the claim being made is the false dichotomy you point out
This reminds me of growing up as a homeschooled kid and hearing people ask my parents "but how will they socialize?", generally while we were at the youth soccer field or at the playground or somewhere else that the irony should have caught their attention.
Homeschooled kids can be isolated more because they don't have the forcing function of mandatory group settings, but often there are other opportunities available for socialization beyond just the one normally-compulsory (and,
often miserable) environment.
Similarly, remote work for the last near-decade for me has given me a lot more time to be engaged socially with my family and other local communities – time that used to be entirely lost to a long commute. My mental health is drastically better than when I was working in-office, largely because I don't have over an hour of traffic each way to deal with, and especially because I get to be engaged with my family more and be much closer and more involved with my kid than I would otherwise.
The question is whether you are the norm or the exception. Others may not have that social structure outside the job available or may not be motivated to use it (the "forcing function" of the office being removed)
Exactly, WFH and home schooling both require you to proactively seek out relationships. A lot of people haven’t developed this habit/skill, and without school or work to provide social time they don’t really develop relationships. Losing that “forcing function” means ripping off the bandaid of how few real relationships they actually have.
There have personally been times in my life where I’ve lost that bandaid (workplace, academic extracurricular activity, etc.) and thankfully I’ve usually been able to respond by realizing that I had a problem and proactively doing something about it.
I wasn’t homeschooled but I have been working from home for good part of last two decades. And I have not felt any negative effects of it.
In fact, it forced me to go out seek friends in local communities like meetups and various clubs. I have a feeling that people who feel isolated due to WFH would be same people who don’t interact with anyone in the offices as well.
I have a feeling that people who feel isolated due to WFH would be same people who don’t interact with anyone in the offices as well
i am experiencing this from a different angle. i am shy in certain situations so i don't easily socialize. what helps me is forced/formalized socialization, like pair programming. forced in the sense that i don't have to ask someone to make it happen. (although asking gets easier as i get older)
so what makes me feel isolated is working alone on a task. the fact that there are dozens of other people around me doesn't help much if i can't talk to them all day unless i need help.
working from home doesn't make things much worse. but, it allows me to avoid social isolation through other means. the advantage of going out to seek friends is that you can choose where to go, and you can go to places that are more open to interaction than the people at work. still i would prefer work where i have to cooperate with others, and not just work on my tasks alone.
Well if you are shy, you have two options. Support going back to the office so everybody commutes there and you can easily talk to people without putting much effort... Or take it as a growth opportunity for yourself, take advantage of the extra time that you have saved in that useless commuting, and try to talk to people outside work and make friends as everybody else does.
you didn't understand or even read what i wrote. my point was that talking to people in settings where talking is required is easier. and that is NOT the office, unless we are actually working on something together, but then i can also work together remotely, which works just as well.
try to talk to people outside work
you mean like what i wrote?:
working from home doesn't make things much worse. but, it allows me to avoid social isolation through other means. the advantage of going out to seek friends is that you can choose where to go, and you can go to places that are more open to interaction than the people at work
Homeschooled people just assume others must be unhappy in those places where they dont go, but that is not the case and not shown in statistics.
Also, those people asking the question you find weird were asking about the experiences and kind of socialization that they consider big deal and was not going on in that place.
As someone who was public schooled six years and homeschooled six years, public school definitely made me more unhappy, and was worse for me socially.
Of course, I wouldn’t assume everyone in my shoes would have the same experience. But it definitely cemented my positive opinion about homeschooling generally.
There’s a lot of assumption in that statement. I was never homeschooled but I hated public school so much that I decided to homeschool all 4 of my kids. They love the freedom and they are honestly over socialized
What aasumption in which statement? What I see is homeschool crowd framing schools like a place everybody hates. Overall, that is definitely not the case. That is literally what I reacted to.
Also being "over socialized" is not a thing. You can be introvert tired of social interactions, but I dont think that is what you mean. If that is the case ease up on kids.
IMO home education is usually better for social development because you typically meet a greater variety of people in different settings. I think its more likely to be a problem for some adults. Remote work can be bad for a large group of people. If you live alone and do not have existing local communities you will have to make an effort. How easy that is depends on where you live.
Remote work (especially as I have been self employed) has definitely allowed me to spend more time with my children (and allowed me to home educate them!) but they are grown up (the younger one will start university this year), I have divorced and moved house so i do not automatically have the family and social network you have. It does not mean I am isolated, but it does mean its not automatic. I can imagine many people do slip into isolation.
Socially, there might be a benefit to local communities from more people engaging. AT long last a replacement for the role stay at home mum used to play in many communities?
Can I get a version of this without the over-the-top misanthropic "don't reproduce" comment?
I hate it when you quote the AI at me because you stop treating both yourself and me like humans who are communicating. I want to pull you up out of that dehumanization, not drop down into it myself in retaliation.
>You're claiming that there is some arbiter of truth out there that is immune to bias, which is completely nonsensical. Bias creeps in everywhere because at the end of the day someone has to pay the salaries of these "fact-checkers" and the people paying them want to see a certain narrative upheld. Pretending that isn't the case is absurd.
This is just epistemological nihilsm.
Maybe it should've been clear from your username, but it doesn't seem like you believe in the concept of truth itself in any useful way.
Consider: perhaps this is the product of your own biases? What then? Does that invalidate or prove your theory of the world? Or is it impossible to tell once you've adopted the notion that nothing can be verified (because that includes the claim that nothing can be verified)?
In any case, I'm sorry. That sounds like a really stressful way to live a life.
Where did I say nothing can be verified? I'm strictly talking about the internet, which is a curated source of information. Are we going to pretend that search results Google doesn't like aren't returned by a query? Why can I go to an alternate search engine like Yandex and get completely different results? Which set of results holds the truth?
I don't need your pity - I'd much rather be a discerning individual that questions mainstream narratives than one who blindly accept what some "fact-checker" tells me is true because they've been deemed reputable by the organizations that pay their salaries, and provide the propaganda to them that will reaffirm the narrative they want to be perceived as true.
As Gerald Massey said -
They must find it difficult... those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as authority.
You're getting downvotes because the target of this particular lie was a known liar, so people probably feel like it's some sort of poetic justice (or they know it's just in-kind retaliation and are cathartically satisfied by it).
I don't think the right answer to widespread disinformation campaigns is retaliatory disinformation campaigns (even if they're couched – pun not intended – in a just-barely-thin-enough veil of "wink wink we know this is a joke").
The right answer is to create systems and measures that actually limit disinformation.
I’m with you. The net effect actually is something akin to honking one’s horn at a guy who honked at you. You think you’re giving him a taste of his own medicine, but walking by I only see two people honking their horn and I’d ideally prefer not to be around the horn honkers since they’re unpleasant.
Is this a meta-joke about links that don't prove what they are supposed to? If so, I don't really get it.
Most of the 2010s section is about some drama about managers/hosters. The only thing that is even remotely applicable is they fact checking a satirical website, and needing to add a "Labeled Satire" tag to clear up confusion around the intensions of the linked site (as opposed to combating people who use the article as an argument without labeling it as such).
Okay, so you're linking a known tabloid whose sensationalized headline is still not about the actual content of the Snopes website being inaccurate, and instead is leaning hard on ad-hominems derived from legal drama between the then-divorcing husband-and-wife team who ran the website originally (with the husband continuing to run it after the wife had stopped working on it years ago).
The only thing in the Wikipedia section you linked that's actually about the content on the Snopes website is the thing where they had to create a label for "Satire" after people got mad that a right-wing satire site (literal, actual, intentional "fake news" but for comedy purposes) had its knowingly-false stories labeled as "false".
(don't come at me with "it was bias"; I lived in the right-wing evangelical bubble through my whole childhood and young adulthood all the way through to the early 2010s; I know the boy-who-cried-persecution complex that lives there, and I also know what the Babylon Bee both was and is quite well; they were never trying to be a real news source, so getting mad that their comedic fiction was labeled "false" is really a stretch).
You haven't exactly shaken my faith in their ability to do the thing they do: find primary sources, present them, and give a verdict based on those primary sources.
This is the exact reason we switched my wife from iPhone to Android – because her iPhone couldn't sync reliably for our shared password vault or for Immich.
Of course it saves me overhead by not having to read all the necessary docs etc myself and just check the resulting code and not having to type all myself.
> Of course it saves me overhead by not having to read all the necessary docs etc myself and just check the resulting code and not having to type all myself.
That link I posted upthread, the "developer" did not read the docs "because the LLM wrote the code" and hence did not realise that the token they had was a full access token, not a limited access token.
You're now boasting that you also don't have to read the docs because the LLM wrote the code?
I mean, it's literally the cause of their irreversible production deletion, in a link that you replied to, and you state you do the same?
It depends on the project. Anything high stake, I verify myself. But also with simple things it is still way faster having a agent dig through it, quote me relevant sections and me evaluating if it is sound, or not.
In my experience, generally Salesforce takes a little while before they notice that they bought you and start imposing uniformity and forcibly regressing you to their mean.
This was a(n internally-)famously hard and lengthy process for them with ExactTarget (read: Marketing Cloud) because ExactTarget employees identified strongly with "ExactTarget orange" culture rather than "Salesforce blue", which mostly meant being appalled at the technical and process swamp that Salesforce represented and pushing hard to keep their own tech stack and their own culture and standards as long as possible.
Heroku had an interesting arc, as they were the bright spot people would point at internally as where actually good engineering somehow happene even at Salesforce. There was a whole effort to let Heroku be the business unit that paved the path to AWS and PaaS for the entire company (which was at the time operating datacenters themselves), and so Heroku got a bunch of investment and freedom for a bit.
Then there was some weird power struggle, and the executives inexplicably decided not only to take that out of Heroku's hands despite their expertise, but also to basically shove Heroku in a corner to be ignored unless stripmined of its customer base through upsells or its staff through reallocations of headcount.
The existence of families and housemates reveals this to be a false dichotomy: either you're spending in-office time with coworkers or you don't like being around any people, seems to be the claim.
reply