Did you actually read the article, or just the big, bold letters? The point wasn't that I am special. It's that each person is an individual, and a company that doesn't recognize that situations differ and make reasonable accommodations is unlikely to be a company at which I (or many like me, if the comments are any indicator) would enjoy working.
If a worker is going to work remotely, is it a better evaluation of her skill to have her do her coding test remotely or have her do it in the office? Likewise, is it fair to ask a potential remote worker to take on an endeavor that's much more cumbersome than it would be for an in-office worker.
The other part of the argument is that the hiring company may be affecting its ability to evaluate a candidate by subjecting him to a situation that's pretty different from the job's reality. Ostensibly, the point of having someone work out of the office is to see how well he'll do if he gets the job, but in the case of a remote worker, this may not be a good indicator.
I think all of this is highly debatable, and there's probably no right answer, but there is lots of food for thought!
Did you read his comment? He referred to your "C-level execs" comment, which was in normal font about half way into the article. I didn't really have a problem with your original article, but responding like this doesn't make you look good.
I did, and that's what I found bothersome. He clearly seized on the "I am special" header and then interpreted the C-level exec comment in terms of that, when the whole point of the "I am special" part was that I'm not. Or, at least, that everyone is unique.
I may have responded harshly, but certainly in kind.
