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

431–440 of 508 posts

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

#431

Post by oblio »

rickydroll wrote: post #389
8note wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentive for living in a dense environment is that you get to use common infrastructure for power, water, sewage, health care etc, rather than running your own septic tank and so on. Even suburbia isn't dense enough to support those things

That is an incentive for somebody else who likes to tell other people how to live. Not for me. I bought a house in suburbia. My basement is filled with home lab, workshop (wood and 3D printing), indoor garden (wintertime leafy greens and starters for the spring), my partner's art studio in place to store telescopes. Our yard has rhubarb, asparagus, strawberries, blueberries, blackberries, apple trees. We are re-wildi…

You'll probably hate to hear this, but your lifestyle is most likely not sustainable, both environmentally and economically.

If you live in the average suburb/town.

It's ok, it's nice for you, but you're just passing the buck to future generations.

And look at the discussions surrounding Boomers, who are blamed precisely for this.

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

#432

Post by throwaway675309 »

akira2501 wrote: post #347
osigurdson wrote: post #122

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.,…

> 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. It's not patently absurd, it obviously bring some benefit to their life to chose this, you're just ignoring those benefits to focus solely on the time and energy costs; which people gladly trade away in order t…

"It's not patently absurd, it obviously bring some benefit to their life to chose this"

For the vast majority of people in the last four decades working out of an office was not a decision up to the employees so I don't know where this is coming from.

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

#433

Post by oblio »

Eupraxias wrote: post #272
lotsofpulp wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC was fun in my 20s, but I could not believe the older people I was working with spent ~3 hours per day commuting to and from Manhattan and NJ/CT/NY. Their entire life, Mon to Fri, was wake up, go to work, maybe spend an hour with kids or watch TV, go to sleep, and repeat. And they did not get paid enough to do it from age 30 to 55 or even 65. The only amount of pay that would be enough would be an amount that allo…

I had a friend who's father did the 4 hours of commuting in/out of NYC every day. Used to visit a few times a year, and he did that every day M-F. As a Vermonter kid, I had a lot of trouble getting my head around how he stayed sane.

He didn't want to be with his family.

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

#434

Post by mikestew »

oblio wrote: post #425
bojo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you that better public transportation and cheaper housing would be a respectable path towards a better society in general. However, please don't state that "the right way is to have... not secluded lives." Some of us absolutely enjoy the seclusion, especially this WFH Alaskan.

> Some of us absolutely enjoy the seclusion, especially this WFH Alaskan. The thing is, you do enjoy it. Just like people enjoy alcohol and tobacco or having cars. However, the real question is: is it really good for you, long term? I'm not sure the answer is clear cut. Humans frequently choose things which are actively harmful to them, at least long term.

“You do enjoy it…just like alcoholics enjoy alcohol.” I mean, assuming I’m reading this correctly, seriously? Let people enjoy their choices, and without pulling questionable comparisons out of thin air. Especially when we aren’t given complete context, as with parent. Don’t take one sentence and then turn around and say, “doesn’t sound healthy”.

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

#435

Post by Symbiote »

deckard1 wrote: post #403
8note wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentive for living in a dense environment is that you get to use common infrastructure for power, water, sewage, health care etc, rather than running your own septic tank and so on. Even suburbia isn't dense enough to support those things

septic tanks?? You're talking about rural America. Not suburbs. The only suburbs I've seen with septic tanks were in neighborhoods sitting below the main sewer line. Because shit can't run uphill. Power and water? Do you know a single suburb not connected to the power grid or doesn't have running water? Do you live in the 1800s?

I think the GP's implication is that maintaining these things at low density is unaffordable, although I haven't looked for any figures to see if there's any truth in this.

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

#436

Post by shtopointo »

leipert wrote: post #418
shtopointo wrote: post #405

Couldn't the opposite be argued as well? Everybody spending 8 more hours at home means so much more individual heating, whereas before, when you went into the office you'd turn the heating off. Also as someone else pointed, working remote leads to leaving small apartments in the city to move into larger spaces (houses) in the suburbs. Then you would need to use a car more to meet people, get groceries etc. Cities are…

Okay, on a personal level this can be tricky to calculate and it is highly individualistic. Example for Heating A German price comparison site has done the calculation and for their model – 20m² home office and a yearly usage of ~2000 litres heating oil for the whole apartment) – you would end up with ~4% higher usage [0]. That means that you have 80 litres more heating oil which is equivalent to roughly 80 days of c…

Interesting info -- but I was mostly referring to the gas / oil consumed to heat up the office for 100 people vs. heat up 100 individual residences.

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

#438

Post by dr_petes »

shtopointo wrote: post #405

Couldn't the opposite be argued as well? Everybody spending 8 more hours at home means so much more individual heating, whereas before, when you went into the office you'd turn the heating off. Also as someone else pointed, working remote leads to leaving small apartments in the city to move into larger spaces (houses) in the suburbs. Then you would need to use a car more to meet people, get groceries etc. Cities are…

This is just me, but I don’t ever turn the heater on in the winter.

I also live in Seattle where a majority of the homes weren’t built with AC. Offices will run the AC units all summer long too.

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

#439

Post by oblio »

mikestew wrote: post #434
oblio wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some of us absolutely enjoy the seclusion, especially this WFH Alaskan. The thing is, you do enjoy it. Just like people enjoy alcohol and tobacco or having cars. However, the real question is: is it really good for you, long term? I'm not sure the answer is clear cut. Humans frequently choose things which are actively harmful to them, at least long term.

“You do enjoy it…just like alcoholics enjoy alcohol.” I mean, assuming I’m reading this correctly, seriously? Let people enjoy their choices, and without pulling questionable comparisons out of thin air. Especially when we aren’t given complete context, as with parent. Don’t take one sentence and then turn around and say, “doesn’t sound healthy”.

The entire zeitgeist is that people are more and more isolated and lack a support network.

We can put 2 and 2 together and figure out that physical isolation in environment where people live far apart from each other and drive everywhere is... isolating?

And by the way, there are studies that show that even for introverts, socialization (even forced!) is ultimately good.

We're not made to sit alone in a room in the middle of nowhere. We were born in caves filled with our tribesfolk, dozens and dozens of people living together in small spaces.

Also, who said anything about alcoholics? Alcohol is just bad for you. Anything except for very small amounts has a ton of bad side effects. It's just "grandfathered in" (just like tobacco) and seen as socially acceptable.

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

#440

Post by eastbound »

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…

> not because of social status. What? You thougth billionaires were taking all their texts seriously?

And it’s mind blowing to me that money can’t buy a better iPhone, they all have to deal with fiddling with the cursor on HN, even princes in the Middle-East, no matter the height of the tower they’re at the top of, they use the same apps as us.

Post reply on HN