I didn't read the mention of work from home as all that important of an example in making his point, and ironically I interpreted it in an entirely neutral light.

He could have instead said that Google decided it was more important to let people have lives outside of work instead of winning, and I'd interpret it the same way, because only an idiot sacrifices too much for their employer. He's not saying it's a bad thing in general, he's saying that if the company's goal is to win, it needs to crack the whip on people who are highly intelligent, but too stupid, too arrogant, and have no other concept of life outside their screens and bank accounts that they'll do literally whatever is demanded of them.

You should be proud to be able to raise a kid _at_all_, but even prouder of the fact that you're only willing to give your company marginally more than you need to in order to make it work. If you needed to work harder I'm sure you would, but you shouldn't be volunteering to do double extra overtime so sociopaths from the valley can flex on other sociopaths from South Africa.

I don't have friends who do this for their companies because those hypothetical people traded friends and sanity for promised clout and stock options. Who fucking cares it's just tech shit.