Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

371–380 of 508 posts

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

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any evidence to support this? I've heard otherwise.

Yes it follows from first principles, a well-insulated house has a structure that is being heated and retains heat (like a pizza stone) as well as the air itself. Heating air inside a cold structure is quite different from heating air inside a warm structure. So your evening heating will have to work harder to warm the structure back up that was allowed to cool in the day. The air in the evening will cool faster and…

You can think about this at the limits. You could turn off the system for days, weeks, months, or whole seasons and allow the house to drift with the ambient environment. Then, you turn it on and recover to the conditioned mode. This certainly uses less energy than if you maintained it for that whole duration. This is because the loss to environment tapers off. It does not keep losing and reach some absurd extreme beyond that of the environment. Reducing the interval for the drift does not fundamentally change this equation. At the other extreme, you can do what a normal thermostat does now. The system is turned off for minutes and allowed to drift until it is called back into action. All other time intervals in between exist on a continuum. The maximal losses are when you try to keep the constant comfort level.

As far as thermodynamics, you're always exchanging heat with the environment. Only the coefficients change with different insulation levels. And these losses correlate with the gradient between the inside and outside. When the gradient is zero, equilibrium means zero net heat transfer. When the house is allowed to drift towards the outside temperature, the total losses will be lower than if comfort were maintained through those same hours. The integral (sum) of these loss rates over time is your total energy loss and a good proxy for the total energy needed from the heating system to condition the space.

The whole tradeoff is about comfort and convenience to have the space conditioned when you want it and to have an appropriately sized system for the needed load. Whether oversized or undersized, equipment may not operate efficiently if asked to operate outside its designed load level and duty cycle. It can also become unreliable with the wrong duty cycle, i.e. a small unit asked to run too long and too frequently or a large unit asked to run too infrequently and for too short a duration each time.

That the equipment has to operate at a higher load during recovery does not imply that it actually uses more total energy in the daily cycle. That would only be true if the equipment is inefficient at the recovery load. An example where this is true would be a heatpump system with an auxiliary resistive heating element that engages in recovery. But, a gas furnace or a sufficiently large heatpump is likely more efficient in recovery since it is also working with a larger gradient until recovery is complete.

It is common for basic clock-based, programmable or smart thermostats to allow for daily drift to save energy. They use a more comfortable set point during morning and evening hours when occupants are most sensitive and then allow some drift towards ambient during midday and nighttime hours when occupants are less likely to notice. This is precisely to leverage this tradeoff to have less total energy losses per day. They don't completely turn off but vary the set point so that the building is kept within a range where the comfortable and efficient recovery is possible. Depending on the day, this might be equivalent to turning off or it might just reduce the duty cycle slightly.

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

#372

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…

>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.

I am not aware of any rules requiring people to spend a minimum percent of their wealth.

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

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I am not aware of any rules requiring people to spend a minimum percent of their wealth.

E: parent edited their post from "I wonder if Warren Buffet has any of these problems" in case anyone is wondering why this post looks out of place.

His wikipedia page documents how he and his family have disowned his granddaughter for revealing family secrets in an interview. So.. yeah, he probably does.

You can bet he has kidnapping insurance on his family, too.

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

#375
post #363

There is nothing more illogical in modern society than commuting to an office every day. Employees waste 2 of their 16 available waking hours in the non-productive commute while incurring significant financial costs (lease/insurance/fuel/energy) in order to support this patently absurd activity. Employers waste time and energy negotiating leases, re-arranging offices, purchasing AV equipment for meeting rooms, etc.,…

In most cases, yes, but for me it’s a 20-minute bike ride that arguably increases my health, and it enables face-to-face conversation with coworkers that video meetings aren’t a real substitute for — I say that after two years of having those. I wouldn’t want to miss that. What we, as a society, should do, is to increase the possibility of working in walking or biking distance.

I really miss my 2x20 minutes bike ride to wake up and decompress. Also lunches with coworkers.

The problem I would have to live near where I would work (likely in the city center). Which means higher rents and smaller places. Also if I change jobs my options would be limited.

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

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes. You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? There really isn't any point arguing over it, because it doesn't change the current state of affairs. My belief is that for remot…

Except we have studies that show companies continue to adopt patently absurd and destructive behaviors? Prior to the pandemic, it was the open-office floorplan, and study after study said it was a failure on basically any metric: productivity, spreading of disease, stress… Now we have remote work, and we're starting to get studies that show the impact it has on productivity… (and thus far, the ones I've seen show fav…

>Prior to the pandemic, it was the open-office floorplan, and study after study said it was a failure on basically any metric: productivity, spreading of disease, stress…

Certainly, I would respect a study that has been replicated multiple times and shown the same result. Links are welcome!

>Someday, scientists will finally reach the ultimate conclusion: that many companies routinely make poor short-term tradeoffs to their long-term detriment.

I don't believe you can make any "ultimate conclusion". When it comes to human psychology, group behavior, and other complicated topics, there is no 'optimal for everyone'. You have to find what works for you in your environment.

You can't hand-wave science into everything. Science is observational. It's about proposing a model/argument/position, and then collecting data to see if the model holds up. You don't fit data to the model. Changing what you do just so you can fit a model is wrong and bad science.

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

#377

needlessly requiring people to move themselves into offices I've been on multiple sides of this environment over my 3+ decades in the job market: managed people in office, managed people while I worked remotely, worked in an office, worked remotely (mostly for the last 13 years). I'm very sympathetic to remote work, but my experience tells me that your "needlessly" is not well-founded.

Why do you need people in the same physical space than you? What can't be achieved via remote tools?

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

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes. You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? There really isn't any point arguing over it, because it doesn't change the current state of affairs. My belief is that for remot…

> If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? My belief is that a lot of the people who get to make these decision like the office, because they don't suffer from the same externalities. In other words, many of the things that make commuting to the office suck ass don't necessarily pertain to the boss.

>My belief is that a lot of the people who get to make these decision like the office, because they don't suffer from the same externalities. In other words, many of the things that make commuting to the office suck ass don't necessarily pertain to the boss.

You have a valid point, but if one way is clearly superior, your competition is going to adopt it and start producing results faster/better. I don't really have a strong opinion on this - I work in manufacturing so remote work is not even an option for me and my team.

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

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes. You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? There really isn't any point arguing over it, because it doesn't change the current state of affairs. My belief is that for remot…

> If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? My belief is that a lot of the people who get to make these decision like the office, because they don't suffer from the same externalities. In other words, many of the things that make commuting to the office suck ass don't necessarily pertain to the boss.

Yeah, I wouldn't have problem going to the office if I can afford a penthouse in the city centre, 15 minutes from the office.

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

#380
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one way or the other if it actually improves outcomes. You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? There really isn't any point arguing over it, because it doesn't change the current state of affairs. My belief is that for remot…

> You can flip that around too - If remote work was so great for productivity, all companies would switch to it? When you’re flipping this pancake please remember that real estate prices and tax write offs weigh into the reasoning some companies employ when deciding their wfh policies

Sure, but it also may be true that remote work is not necessarily better in every situation. I don't assume every manager is a fraud when they're wanting people to work from the office. I don't know their situation, so I would much rather grant them the decision.

Ideally, you will have companies that are remote, non-remote, and hybrid - so a candidate can choose which company they want to join.

Post reply on HN