It’s absolutely less effective for the majority of organizations and engineers. Most of the engineers claiming they’re more effective aren’t actually. They may get to do the part they like more (though in my experience that’s not programming despite their claims, that’s goofing off on HN or doing their laundry), but that’s not the same thing as being more effective for the organization as a whole.
(And sure you can blame it all on “managers” and how they should be better in all kinds of ways, but that doesn’t change the fact that remote, for most organizations and most engineers, is less effective as things stand today.)
So frustrating as a former resident to see how much the city was taking in via taxes and how little we as residents were getting to show for it. How slowly and how poorly those dollars were being deployed.
Yeah, a reasonable discussion includes both benefits (your experience) and risks (mine). The former has recently been getting all the air time.
This isn’t a “both sides” argument wherein some highly unlikely hypothetical is trotted out to debate the consensus. Plenty of people have had bad experiences with long term ill effects.
As someone who now occasionally suffers panic attacks due to psychedelic use, I agree: people downplay the risks because it suits their personal narrative and experience. Perhaps as a pushback against years of over-exaggeration re: risks, per another poster, but nevertheless a definite under emphasis on the dangers these drugs pose.
(And sure you can blame it all on “managers” and how they should be better in all kinds of ways, but that doesn’t change the fact that remote, for most organizations and most engineers, is less effective as things stand today.)