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

351–360 of 508 posts

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

#351

Post by helloharvey »

deepGem wrote: post #79

Two main problems 1. Middle and senior management who don't want to lose control or be rendered less effective. 2. Engineers who are not trained in written communication and largely cannot autonomously move a group towards a goal without a lot of supervision. If you solve for no 2, then that acts counter to no 1 - because middle management will be questioned - why do we need you ? If a group of engineers can function…

This kind of a comment where middle and senior management will be rendered useless (and therefore feel threatened) by communication-competent engineers is both prevalent on HN and absurdly wrong from a business organization perspective. Joel Spolsky’s writing on this subject should be mandatory reading before people spout nonsense.

If this is a website supposedly for startups, the audience missed that mark by a wide margin.

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

#352

Post by bryanrasmussen »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #246
Jenk wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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…

>Live a more modest life and

in other words, don't be a billionaire. However Bob has evidently decided to keep being a billionaire which means he has to maintain and review stolen property etc.

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

#353

Post by erik_seaberg »

msmenardi wrote: post #243
MarcoSanto wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It'd also be nice if companies were forced to pay for time spent commuting

Then to compete we’d have to move more often and pay more for less space to live even closer to the office.

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

#354

Post by anikom15 »

akgerber wrote: post #342
anikom15 wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentive to live in a dense environment is being close to work. If work is at home then that incentive is gone.

A dense environment also has a lot of daily destinations within walking distance. That's also very nice when one works from home— either working from home in my Brooklyn apartment, or working from home at my parents' house in a Midwestern streetcar suburb where restaurants/coffeeshops/grocery stores/parks/bars are also a pleasant walk away.

The Midwestern environment doesn’t have high-density housing though. That’s what matters for conservation.

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

#355

Post by naasking »

neutronicus wrote: post #227
naasking wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I talked with either ignore it completely or argue that it's worse because it "induces sprawl". But, sprawl is only a problem because of commutes. If you had sprawl with lots of small, local commercial outlets, then that's just perfect. No long commutes to work and no long commutes to get life's necessities.

Even if you stop moving people, you still have to move goods (and electricity, and sewage) which is less efficient if the people are spread over a larger area.

> Even if you stop moving people, you still have to move goods (and electricity, and sewage) which is less efficient if the people are spread over a larger area

That's not necessarily true. Centralizing leads to congestion, for instance, to say nothing of the other failure modes of centralizing (single point of failure being the big one). I expect there is an optimal density for each of those, and it's not clear that "large city" is in that region.

Losses in distributing electricity are fairly negligible, and distributed generation should be encouraged for some of the same reasons.

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

#356

Post by waboremo »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #228
Jenk wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The increase of wealth and fame leads to an increase of isolation and decrease of safety and trust. Beyond a certain point, as a “known wealthy person”, you will never know if a romantic partner cares about you or your wealth. Same for your friends. Relatives. Anybody. You will not be able to do things you’ve taken for granted - like go to the pub or to a restaurant or on a hike or ride your bike on the bike path - w…

This level of fame paranoia is commonly talked about, but is also extremely hard to reach without actually trying and spending resources in regularly keeping your name in people's mouths. You can achieve a great level of wealth without anybody caring: see extremely wealthy families in most countries who 99% of people won't even recognize even if you show them a picture with their name under.

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

#357

Post by Karawebnetwork »

rr888 wrote: post #26

I live in a small apartment a short train ride from the office. It isn't big enough to work from home. If I worked from home I'd get a big house in the suburbs, and buy a car to get around. My environmental footprint would be much bigger. Edit - if I didn't have kids I'd totally have a beach house and a mountain house to live in. Maybe in different countries too.

Don't you simply need an apartment with an extra room? That's what I am doing and it works very well. WFH wouldn't even be in my list of reasons as to why I should move to a house.

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

#358

Post by twblalock »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #321

The environmental argument is sometimes used, but often (and often correctly) seen as someone who prefers remote work dishonestly slapping an environmental argument on it (dishonest, because the actual primary reason they're pushing for it doesn't match the stated primary reason). It isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect either - one argument I've heard is that in areas where air conditioning is a large contributor to e…

In the Bay Area in 2020 we had rolling blackouts in the summer because the electricity used by air conditioners put more stress on the grid than normal. It was not a particularly hot summer, we just had everyone working at home.

Most of our housing stock is not particularly energy efficient. Whole-house AC and heat instead of systems with multiple zones, big tank water heaters, ok but not great insulation.

I'd buy the idea that working from home lowers emissions and gasoline consumption but also increases the consumption of electricity and natural gas.

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

#360

Post by aaronax »

msmenardi wrote: post #243
MarcoSanto wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It'd also be nice if companies were forced to pay for time spent commuting

So then their next move would be to mandate that you live within a certain commute range. I don't think we want that.
Post reply on HN