I pretty much have always given at least two weeks notice, the one exception was during training at a warehouse job and I think I was going to get fired shortly if I didn’t quit since it was clearly not working. Sometimes you have to give notice in bad situations.

In retrospect I’m glad I took that job anyway though, it got me out of a job I hated and I quickly found a workplace that respected me. I did worry a lot at the time though, I didn’t have much savings. Also, a few days after I became unemployed Hurricane Harvey hit us in Houston, which could have turned out pretty badly for me if I lost my apartment or my car, but it had no serious impact on my livelihood. Giving no notice definitely feels better when you have options and the ability to burn bridges.

This is a fair point, I was being a bit facetious, but I’m sure there are plenty of teams both totally in person and totally remote using it. It is just bad optics I think. Like if Teams isn’t useful enough for them that they have to be in person despite having an ostensibly full-featured videoconferencing and calendar coordination and chat, the hell good is it for my organization?

Makes me laugh additionally because the modern conception of “dogfooding” in tech was popularized by Microsoft itself back in the 1990s. This is the opposite of dogfooding and really is a big condemnation of Teams as a software solution for connected work, at least on paper.

They are using it in a different sense. Not that they are considered luxury goods by being expensive and associated with higher socioeconomic standing, but that they are a frivolity which is not necessary and which has tangible costs that they feel are justified due to pure pleasure.