|
True, if only there was some way to talk to those experienced people from remote (*sarcasm*) ...
|
|
|
|
|
The phone and net meetings are no replacement for being in the same room as the person who's trying to pound new information into your head.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: phone and net meetings
Make me shudder
... such stuff as dreams are made on
|
|
|
|
|
Apologize, I don't want to sound rude, but that is some seriously limited understanding or remote environment...
So in your mind you would use phone and meetings to educate someone, really?
How about some desktop assistance, remote sharing, VNC?
Nevertheless, I've seen a lot of good and bad thinks that come from teleworking, but educating the newcomers is pretty much the same as if you do it in office.
|
|
|
|
|
Stating an honest opinion isn't rude; go for it.
But talking to someone at his desk, where he can scribble diagrams on paper, show you windows, point at things with his finger (and all the while you can see if he's shrugging, etc.), without his having to spend distracting seconds clicking and configuring things to make it possible for him to show you stuff just doesn't compare. Real, human contact wins, every time.
Plus, you have to book remote meetings, rather than just stroll over and chat (and maybe return a couple of minutes later for confirmation/expansion of details).
It's really tricky to use teamviewer/virtual whiteboards/WebEx/etc. at a coffee machine, or walking down the corridor.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know, I get what you're saying and it does make scene, but in practice it's not like that.
When you're educating someone of course you'll need to "book" a remote, but you would do the same in office as well, you would need to schedule a time for this.
Also you can do all those things you mentioned, you and/or him can also point to stuff on screen, show windows, draw stuff etc.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that if learning remotely was so inconvenient then I don't believe that online courses would ever exist, don't you agree?
Also if learning remotely was so inconvenient there would be no sites like CP 
Also regarding the short questions, inquires or issues that a beginner can have, he can just use Slack, Skype, whatever and ask (if needed share or give control of his screen).
I really don't see much difference from going to some person for help and chatting with a person for help.
So in short, I don't see why human contact should wins, everything can be done and explained remotely...
In practice it's really not as you picture it to be. In real life inexperience people don't have problem working remotely, on the other hand some experience people do have that problem...
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but you're very much focussed on the education element, which is a completely different thing from working with people, perhaps on a project that's a few years "mature".
If you need to learn something from a teacher, 99% of the time you'd do as well reading a book, because the huge majority of teachers know little more than is in the books -- like if you need to learn the latest weird way of typing in a FOR loop, in the langue du jour, no problem! Get the guy on-line or google it.
but if you need to pick specialist knowledge from an expert, because you are now working on a product that he's been working on for years, and knows inside-out (but he is by no means a teacher), then you don't want to sit and listen to a lecture, because that's not what he's good at, and he won't waste his time preparing one.
You need to pick his brains for a starting point, then keep going back with little questions about little details -- and you have to pay attention to how he says what he says, and the doodles and squiggles and gesticulations that clarify and reinforce what he's saying.
If we're talking about someone preparing for months to do a Ted talk, fine; that can be done "over the air", and so can basic meetings (where little would be achieved, no matter how the meetings were held), but to extract hands-on experience and knowledge from a colleague: sitting on the corner of his desk and chatting will get you an order of magnitude more Useful information per minute spent than an on-line chat will, no matter how cool or cute the tech is.
And you really don't want to know how many comparatively useless hours I've spent in discussions held with the three corners of the Earth via various high-tech and ridiculously expensive comms tools.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You misunderstood what I mean by educating, as I previously mentioned I'm referring to a worker.
This is probably my fault because I mentioned online courses, with that I just wanted to emphasize that remote learning is rather common. True, it's not a same learning process but regardless I think it was a valid point.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
You need to pick his brains for a starting point, then keep going back with little questions about little details -- and you have to pay attention to how he says what he says, and the doodles and squiggles and gesticulations that clarify and reinforce what he's saying.
This can all be done remotely, even doodles and squiggles (which are essential to me, I always draw stuff out with my tablet). Regarding the gestures, ok this cannot be done, but if your teaching depends on your gestures then there is something wrong with it.
In short, you can get the required experience and knowledge from your colleague without him needing to prepare some lecture or anything. He would just explain everything in the exact same manner as if he is sitting there right beside you.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
sitting on the corner of his desk and chatting will get you an order of magnitude more Useful information per minute spent than an on-line chat will, no matter how cool or cute the tech is.
Can you provide some concrete example of that, something you found that is easily explainable live, but requires long time remotely?
I work in a company that switched to fully remote for years now and we're somewhat associated with two other fully remote companies.
We all never had an issue with inexperience workers (at least to my knowledge and observation).
FYI we have quite a few mature projects (one of our products is 10 years old, and it's not a legacy product  ).
Mark if you honestly have an experience in working remotely and those conclusion of yours are not based on some subjective feelings, but rather facts, then my conclusion is that if there really are some things that are hard to explain remotely then for that particular job inexperience workers will have problems and for other jobs they will not.
So in short that generalized statement, people who lack experience should only work in office, is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
Everything you know about Windows deployment is undergoing wrenching changes. For IT pros who've grown accustomed to "set it and forget it" as a management strategy, three big changes are making life much more challenging. "The hurrier I go, the behinder I get."
|
|
|
|
|
Google has been actively finding new security vulnerabilities in Microsoft's products through its Project Zero research wing. The company has now disclosed an issue with Windows, which Microsoft hasn't patched within the 90-day window given by Google after reporting it to the Redmond giant. Maybe not evil, but definitely not cool
|
|
|
|
|
Forcing ms to do the things they should do, rather than f**k about with useless cr@p they want to f**k about with (but users don't want)?
I'm all in favour. Get devs reassigned to vulnerabilities and bugs.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
agree
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
What goes around, comes around. Microsoft should start a "look at Android" department. Except they might consume all of Microsoft's resources.
|
|
|
|
|
"Shall I fix bugs and beat the competition, or shall I spend my time making bitchy attacks at the competition?"
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Robots are taking human jobs. But Bill Gates believes that governments should tax companies’ use of them, as a way to at least temporarily slow the spread of automation and to fund other types of employment. Is that a 1099, or a W-4?
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Is that a 1099, or a W-4?
I think that would be a WD-40 [^].
«There is a spectrum, from "clearly desirable behaviour," to "possibly dodgy behavior that still makes some sense," to "clearly undesirable behavior." We try to make the latter into warnings or, better, errors. But stuff that is in the middle category you don’t want to restrict unless there is a clear way to work around it.» Eric Lippert, May 14, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, without sharing the increased income from using robots, we will see problems at a scale never before (numerous times the cause and effect of destroying the weaving machinery in the late 19th)...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
So, Excel does with one person what used to take several. Should every installation of Excel pay taxes? What about Outlook, which has reduced jobs for secretaries?
And what about Bill's house? I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that he has a lawn. Does the person who maintains that lawn use a lawn mower? If so, shouldn't Bill pay taxes on that labor saving device? Or taxes on his car, since he doesn't have to maintain a stable, carriage, coachman, etc.?
Finally, what about tasks that would simply be eliminated entirely were it not for robots?
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: So, Excel does with one person what used to take several. Should every installation of Excel pay taxes? What about Outlook, which has reduced jobs for secretaries?
While true that those reduced the number of lets say accountants and secretaries on the upside they created an equally or bigger numbers of IT related jobs.
As for the lawn, house, car... just think of all the people working to produce said cars, houses and so on.
Bill was talking mainly about factories(I think) and the huge impact on labor. Just think of a plant that has say 2000 workers(around 650 per shift) that will get fully automated. Net result loss of 1800 jobs.
Sure they will need some extra maintenance technicians and PLC engineers but the number of jobs created compared to the number lost is huge.
Bottom line, I kinda agree with him. Not completely but more inclined in favor then against.
|
|
|
|
|
Companies* already pay taxes on their profit so if the robot increases profitability it will be taxed.
* Yes - I know, but that is a different issue to do with oversupply of accountants and lawyers, not robots.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is the difference between the larger taxes and between the lost income of those have no job at all...
The companies are paying larger taxes, but those lost any income not only will not pay taxes, but will get some kind of government support... That's one plus but two minuses... with an addition of growing number of unemployed with all the problems it makes...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: to fund other types of employment
E.g. lawyers and accountants.
|
|
|
|
|
did the Lord say that machines ought ta take the place of living,
and what's a subsitute for bread and beans, I ain't seen it,
do engines get rewarded for their steam
--John Henry
He's aiming at jalousy, and taking away the aim from the real problem. And sorry, but Bill Gates stating that someone should pay taxes? The master at not-paying taxes is calling to tax others?
The text only proves that extreme wealth is not compatible with democracy and a free society 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: The text only proves that extreme wealth is not compatible with democracy and a free society
Actually, all it proves is that extreme wealth is not correlated with extreme wisdom.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Users and businesses can protect themselves with these tips. "Things we do without thinking — there's the real danger."
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
