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

471–480 of 508 posts

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

#471

Post by my_usernam3 »

coding123 wrote: post #286

The only downside to all of this remoteness is the non-programmer workforce going remote. I do think people that pick up the phone pre-pandemic should be picking up the phone post-pandemic. Whether that's from their home or not, I don't care. What we get instead though, is ringing, ringing ringing. Can't get my power ordered. I can't get roofing ordered. Can't get call backs. Things were more expedient pre-pandemic.…

> The only downside to all of this remoteness is the non-programmer workforce going remote.

I'm sure you can think of many other downsides than that. This topic has been discussed adnaseum, and there are many pros and cons of remote vs in-office

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

#472

Post by rickydroll »

Rapzid wrote: post #453
Symbiote wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Texas is 99% suburbia. TIL we don't have city sewer, water, electricity, and other infra because it's unaffordable.

s/suburbia/rural/

Fortunately with modern technology, you can run your own composting waste disposal, water from rainwater or aquifer, electricity via solar panels and batteries and the entire package is surprising affordable. That is to say cheaper than in urban 2000 square-foot condo.

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

#473

Post by fbdab103 »

thedangler wrote: post #129
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.,…

Very true. And I did some rough estimations on why my employer wants us in the office. They make $115k a month of employees buying coffee. That is only coffee, and that was a very conservative estimate of only 40% of employees buying only a coffee on an average of $2. This doesn't take into account parking we have to pay for, or lunch, or snacks.

Do you know what office space costs? Incredibly difficult to imagine the coffee scheme is netting an observable dent to the balance sheet.

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

#474

Post by fbdab103 »

dr_petes wrote: post #438
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.

I assume you are in an apartment complex and not a free standing home? That is, you are a vampire, stealing your neighbor's heat. Otherwise, I do not see how that is possible.

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

#475

Post by rickydroll »

oblio wrote: post #431
rickydroll wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have come to terms with the fact that any form of human civilization is not sustainable. We take more then we return to the Gaia ecosystem. At best we can be in balance once human existence returned to a pre-technological, nasty, brutish, and short lifestyle.

Boomers are blamed because of younger generation ignorance. There is an almost a willful lack of understanding of historical events that boomers lived through that shaped their lives and their finances. Looking from a point of older age to younger generations, anyone with half a brain can see the stressors and forces making their lives difficult. Yet we also see the the same forces that shaped boomers doubling down on shaping you. While there are some bright spots of Gen Z pushing back on power structures and winning, those wins are skirmishes because those in power were caught by surprise. In the next conflict, history of social change over the past hundred and 20 years shows that the next conflict will not be won so easily.

From my perspective, the generational you need to take control of politics in your future and stop putting your hands over your eyes and saying you have no control. Get out there, run for office, learn how your constituents live in what's important to them.

Remember, if you do not get elected and take your seat at the table, you will be ignored and nothing will change in your favor. Don't count on others to fight your battles for you.

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

#476

Post by [deleted] »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #300
osigurdson wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to this data, commutes are pretty much no big deal in all states. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/...

I'm always amazed at these datasets. They tend to ignore things like the laws of physics. When you live 40 miles away from your destination, there's no way that you'll get there in 37.7 minutes, unless you can do over the state speed limit, the entire time. And that doesn't even count things like congestion, traffic lights, and whatnot. Frankly, I'm kind of amazed at the nasty reception that my post got. I do apologi…

[deleted]

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

#477

Post by baka367 »

In general I feel that the remote work is still massively underrepped. I get depression every time I open any of those remote work sites and 99% of the job posts are tagged with "us only".

There seem to be opportunities in other places (such as EU) around as well, but one has to search far and wide instead of just having them available in the easy-to-access sites.

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

#478

Post by 2143 »

waboremo wrote: post #356
andrei_says_ wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agree.

There's plenty of wealthy stealthy people around, who put a lot of effort into their business and not necessarily into themselves.

They'd fly right under the radar.

The following may not be a perfect example of the above, but just read up on the late Thomas Murphy and Daniel Burke ("Tom & Dan") of ABC. I find their no-nonsense no-bullshit down-to-earth frugal approach to business inspiring.

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

#479

Post by rickydroll »

LucasBrandt wrote: post #401
rickydroll wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm okay with the current suburban model in many ways. For me it would make a difference is dedicated bike lanes. I walk for exercise my neighborhood and the labyrinth is a welcome pattern to reduce boredom. Public transit will never work for me except under very rare circumstances. For what it's worth, I hate wasting my time traveling and cars are the only things fast enough make going anywhere vaguely tolerable. Am…

I don't want to discount that you're largely content with the the suburbs as they're built today - that's fine and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. I do want to point out that from my point of view living in a really dense area, some of the reasoning is contradictory. > I walk for exercise in my neighborhood > Public transit will never work for me ... I hate wasting my time traveling and cars are the only thin…

You assume that the places I go are close to where I could live. Work from home so no travel there, supermarket is a mile away but I can't bike there because the roads are shit and the only time I go is usually after hours before the store closes and biking the dark is even more dangerous. Everything else I go to in my life is not very often and at least a 20 minute drive away.

My walking is to get me away from urban noise and people. My recreation takes me to places like get away from urban noise and people.

I find your travel time report interesting. I believe it that for where you go, it works. But I did a test with places I would go to in the Chicago area and none of them accessible by public transit and are typically an hour to an hour and 1/2 drive away (state parks). I test travel time by Google maps and driving is almost always significantly faster.

Yes I am glad that parts of Chicago were spared the insanity of interstate highways into urban spaces. It makes no sense doing that. Interstates should bypass urban centers. Although we should probably look at history as to what might happen. I suggest looking at what happened to urban centers that lost the competition for rail lines back in the late 1800s.

Another interesting experiment would be to map out the impact of replacing highways with train lines and full switching yards etc. that carry the same load of passengers and freight in the same timeframe.

I agree with you that we do need to work out a way to minimize costs of human existence both suburban and urban. We also need to fully account for all the externalities for both living spaces. We also need to reckon with there are country mice and city mice. We have very different values and very different physical tolerances in our living space.

We also need to look beyond the dichotomy of driving or walking but instead consider neighborhood delivery services for food and other ordered goods. see: https://www.businessinsider.com/lifvs-grocery-store-sweden-u.... I found this article interesting because I got a chance to see firsthand urban and rural Sweden and Finland this summer. Both places have food deserts of a sort. I don't fully grok it yet but it looks like people are comfortable with having only one or two vendors for a given item in a small store with a relatively small selection. There didn't seem to be the same "obsession" we have with getting a better price.

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

#480

Post by shtopointo »

rory wrote: post #444
shtopointo wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The savings from turning household heat down during the day aren't trivial, but they aren't very large either. You can keep your heat ~10-20°F lower during the day when you're not home and save energy, but then additional energy is needed later in the day to get the temperature back up. Typical estimates are that this lowers gas or oil consumption by 10-15%, and only in the colder months. Certainly dwarfed by energy…

Good info, thanks
Post reply on HN