Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 508 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#301

Post by jasmer »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #220
bilekas wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Musk's text message conversation during Twitter-lawsuit discovery I only saw this now : https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/09/elon-... It's actually kind of incredible how it all seems to work. The cringe too of the fawning is a good indicator why Musk feels he can do whatever he likes, including attempting to troll everyone on his board. It seems so juvenile.

I don't think it's that weird, there not a lot of differences between people at the top or at the bottom. It's the fact that they were idealized that makes this dip into their intimacy so strange. But basically, those communications look a lot like ones that I would have with my own friends. And when I was a students, we were careful about spending 10 euros. Now, we have casual chats about buying a sauna for the gard…

While it's fair to point out so many of the similarities between the people at the top and the bottom ... there are also differences. Notably, Musk is an outlier in many ways. The vast, vast majority of CEO's are highly conscientious at least in civil terms. They are 'restrained' if anything.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#302

Post by polishdude20 »

Jenk wrote: post #216
toomuchtodo wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to note that wealth doesn't improve your character; it simply amplifies who you already are.

It's also incredibly lonely at times - despite being constantly surrounded by people - which I figure can warp your mind much like too much solitary confinement can. I don't say this from personal experience (un)fortunately, I say this as someone who has a family member that is a confidant of a billionaire from the middle-east (whom I'll refer to as Bob.) The family member is one of their close staff - travels with t…

Reminds me of turning on cheat codes in games. It get boring pretty quickly.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#303

Post by UncleOxidant »

chrisseaton wrote: post #294
UncleOxidant wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a profit center.

Or is it a cost-centre because most people wouldn’t work under those conditions and so you don’t get the best people to make profit with?

In the interviewing process they try to determine which potential employees will drink the most coffee.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#304

Post by polishdude20 »

blahblah1234567 wrote: post #268
lotsofpulp wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maids, servers, and other staff are stealing things all the time - Bob maintains and reviews an inventory of stolen property with his security detail, with monthly targets... theft of his belongings is an ever present cost to Bob. I can solve this problem for Bob. Live a more modest life and not have 10 homes with a million things in them. Maybe stick to first class flights, or even charter private flights when desi…

Yep. I'd say the solution is: Live a modest life, and don't advertise your wealth. I doubt there is any law anywhere prohibiting a millionaire or billionaire from moving themselves and their families to a new place and living a middle class lifestyle under a new name. Advertising one's wealth is a signal for "I seek validation" and "Please appreciate me"/"Be my friend because I am wealthy" I doubt anyone is actually…

It's not bobs wealth the want though. It's his connections. You can't just quit and move somewhere and expect your connections to be severed. Others will seek you out for your previous connections. Billionaires "know" you now. You have influence over them whether you like it or not.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#305

Post by twobitshifter »

MarcoSanto wrote: post #230
ibejoeb wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't intend to de-rail the convo, but this is an important one. > improve inter-family relationships It could , maybe, but it can also be a significant source of strife. It's tough spending all day, every day with someone. Because of that, you find that people are either looking for larger homes in order to have private work spaces or renting office space. Both of those shift the cost burden from the company to th…

This. FFS who wants to stay home to live and work!?!? I don’t understand WFH. the right way is to have better public transport and cheaper housing, not secluded lives.

If you compare the economic costs of public transport and “cheaper” housing to WFH’s requirement of an internet connection, it’s much more cost effective to work from home. Now we could say that face-to-face interaction outweighs these costs economically, but you’d need the data, and at least in terms of commuting you’ll never beat the ecological footprint of not going anywhere.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#306

Post by nottorp »

To be slightly nasty:

To be an environmental activist * requires a certain type of personality. The kind that thrives in groups and in public. Of course they wouldn't even think of working from home.

* or any kind of activist for a cause actually. But that would decrease the nastiness.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#307

Post by throwthroyaboat »

driverdan wrote: post #287
brandmeyer wrote: post #260

For my case, it was worse. When normalized to dollars, I spent nearly 2x more in HVAC expenses compared to driving's fuel costs, and that's with a modest commute (20 miles). Its much less energy intensive to air condition one large medium-density building than many smaller low-density buildings.

That sounds like you're either running your HVAC at extreme temps or have very poor insulation.

Could be, but it's also likely that 1x big HVAC is more efficient than 10x smaller units.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#308

Post by H1Supreme »

mikojan wrote: post #186

Everybody preparing their own meal requires more energy. Everybody heating their own workplace requires more energy. In general: Anything you do alone is more resource intensive than a comparable group activity.

> Everybody preparing their own meal requires more energy.

This applies to both office and WFH. When I worked in offices, 90% of my meals were prepared at home.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#309

Post by eloff »

cableshaft wrote: post #192
eloff wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even just encouraging fracking (cheap gas vs coal means 2x reduction in carbon), or stopping to subsidize fossil fuels would make a massive difference.

Fracking is not sustainable (you're not going to be able to frack forever, we've already tapped a lot of the 'cheap gas' wells, future wells will eventually get prohibitively expensive, it already is very expensive and not even that profitable[1], and got a lot more expensive this year thanks to it requiring a specific type of sand that's now 3x the cost[2]) and is harmful to freshwater, not only by using a ton of it…

It doesn't need to be sustainable, a short-term reduction in emissions it's also helpful and buys more time to go carbon free. It's a complete lie that we have to transition directly from our current state to zero carbon with no stops in between. Fracking is something really only done in the US. Doing more fracking internationally could really bring emissions down. Fracking has done more to reduce US emissions than all the climate change policy combined.

The point you bring up about methane leaks is salient though, if you can't do it without leaking too much methane, it doesn't make sense. However, I don't think that's impossible. Taxing methane leakage and monitoring it from satellites, as one idea of how to do that, seems quite possible.

Obviously it's also good to mitigate damage to the environment via waste products, etc, but that also seems to be possible with the right regulation and enforcement.

Post reply on HN