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

491–500 of 508 posts

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

#491

Post by dont__panic »

lm28469 wrote: post #82
dont__panic wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those of us who live in a place that reaches freezing temperatures for months on end, there's no choice. If I don't heat my house, my pipes will freeze and I'll be out thousands of dollars in repair work and damage. I turn the heat down to 55 or so (the lowest the thermostat will go) when I'm away for a few days. But I've never heard of anyone not leaving their heat on some setting for this reason. Do you live so…

> Do you live somewhere that almost never drops below freezing? Grew up in a place that reaches -25c pretty often and never heard of that. It's in europe though so we probably have better insulation. I could leave my house 3 days and no pipe would burst, I've never heard of anyone having burst pipes now that I think about it. When I went to school and my parents were at work we'd shut down the heating completely, we…

Woah, that's wild! I've lived in mostly wooden houses in the Northeast for most of my life, and it seems to happen to one or two people in every community per year.

It's mostly a problem where I come from during power outages -- if you don't have power for 2-3 days, you might not be able to run even a propane-based heating system. But maybe the prevalance of water baseboard heating systems contributes; I imagine they're the most vulnerable pipes in the house to freezing, since they by nature sit closest to cold exterior temperatures.

One more thing I assumed was a worldwide problem, that it turns out is just a result of shoddy American building quality. Sigh.

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

#492

Post by sershe »

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…

Well, statistically most of people don't live "out there". To live out there is a choice... like, I know people who live in a mountain town because hiking/climbing is walking distance, or people who live in the country cause they want to keep a horse for regular riding (I think that was the primary reason?). Sure, their commute sucks, but for most people the only reason I can think of for living that far out is not being able to afford housing, and that is not typical for people who can WFH full time.

So, most people don't mind their commute. Also if I was hypothetically an employer, all other things being equal, wouldn't I rather hire people who don't have hobbies/things they are so committed to that they justify living "out there"? ;)

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

#493

Post by ra00l »

Because it's not pro-environment, as you'd think.

More CO2 is generated by remote employees than those that go to work. The CO2 emissions generated by an office (including heating / AC / water / employee transportation - in EU it's mostly by subway / bus) are smaller compared to each individual employee CO2 emissions.

Don't have a source, but you can find CO2 calculators online.

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

#494

Post by sershe »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #239
sershe wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commute from a large-ish city to its suburb, my commute is 15-18 minutes. Anecdotes are not data... average commute in the US is like 20-30mins. I suspect most people who can be fully remote (i.e. are not in service industry) can afford to move instead of commuting 3 hours one way.

So actually not a large city at all? Hard to believe there's there's actually a commute from Suburb to Downtown in under 20 minutes during rush hour for any of the 20 largest cities in the US.

Seattle is #18. At peak rush hour it is 30-40mins, the main reason being that it's across a giant bottleneck of a bridge that also has ongoing construction; driving to suburbs that are not directly across the bridge would be faster. But, I don't drive at rush hour. "Start an 1-1.5 hours later" is much easier to grant than "WFH" :)

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

#495

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

sershe wrote: post #492
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well, statistically most of people don't live "out there". To live out there is a choice... like, I know people who live in a mountain town because hiking/climbing is walking distance, or people who live in the country cause they want to keep a horse for regular riding (I think that was the primary reason?). Sure, their commute sucks, but for most people the only reason I can think of for living that far out is not b…

> Well, statistically most of people don't live "out there".

That depends.

HN seems to be a whole bunch of folks that are actually against the idea of living "out here" (not "there," to me). I find that interesting. I'm sure some demographic research would suggest why that is. I can tell you, from simply stepping out of my front door, that there are a lot of people, "out here," and I suspect that most of them work, somewhere.

> Also if I was hypothetically an employer, all other things being equal, wouldn't I rather hire people who don't have hobbies/things

Yeah, that's a pretty common mindset. "But why can't they all be slaves?" is what most corporate owners lament.

But if you want experienced, accomplished folks, you may find the pickings are a bit slim, in the immediate metro area. Might have to cast a wider net.

I lived in a city for a few years, and it was extremely convenient, but I was also unmarried, and ran a baseline stress level just below "squirrel on meth."

It seems that young people like being in the noise and bustle of a city, or close to it. Since tech has a real bad ageism problem, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised at the reactions.

But I am. I never thought of having a commute as something that defines an "old."

Boy, are some people in for a nasty surprise.

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

#496

Post by neutronicus »

b3morales wrote: post #263
Spivak wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean yes and. There's an entire industry of restaurants that cater to providing food to workers in business districts. They move to where the people are. I don't think suburban neighborhoods having hyperlocal businesses would ever be considered a bad thing.

The restaurants are there and successful because of the density, though. The falafel shop around the corner from three multi-storey office buildings can't afford to have a location in every suburb that formerly sent workers to the business district. There's existing evidence for this: how many restaurants do you see in standalone office parks? A few perhaps, but nothing like what's downtown.

If you have a parking lot you don't have to have a location in every suburb. People will just drive over from neighboring suburbs when they want falafel.

This is also why you don't see restaurants by office parks - if you want to serve the business lunch crowd, it's better to be by something like a Costco with a big parking lot that's mostly empty on weekdays instead of an office park that's all parked-up at lunchtime. Even absent parking-lot efficiencies, it's probably just optimal to be equidistant from all the office parks instead of next to one.

That's the challenge you face, really - out in the suburbs most people would rather drive 12 minutes than walk 7. I think people just see walking as a way to be cold and struggle to carry heavy things, so fuck it.

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

#498

Post by Symbiote »

rickydroll wrote: post #479
LucasBrandt wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> ... Sweden and Finland ...

You're correct, people generally aren't too bothered if there are only a couple of choices, either of shops (e.g. two supermarkets) or products (two types of cereal bar).

I wouldn't in any way call it a food desert though. All the normal food for the region is available, the rest is just luxuries.

(And to the general point, people owning cars but mostly using them for recreation would still be a huge reduction in traffic, noise and pollution. That's not unusual for European city-dwellers, who often own one car and use it once or twice a week.)

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

#499

Post by adamsmith143 »

sershe wrote: post #494
adamsmith143 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So actually not a large city at all? Hard to believe there's there's actually a commute from Suburb to Downtown in under 20 minutes during rush hour for any of the 20 largest cities in the US.

Seattle is #18. At peak rush hour it is 30-40mins, the main reason being that it's across a giant bottleneck of a bridge that also has ongoing construction; driving to suburbs that are not directly across the bridge would be faster. But, I don't drive at rush hour. "Start an 1-1.5 hours later" is much easier to grant than "WFH" :)

So you aren't really comparing apples to apples. So what if I can drive downtown in under 30 minutes at 3:00 am?

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

#500

Post by watwut »

lm28469 wrote: post #61
watwut wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most common way of heating here is that you have radiators set up Most people here would need to actively tweak it every time the leave the house and every time they come in. And do it separately for each room. Just from the way how heating works - you have valve in each room that you turn in order to adjust heating. Of course no one does it every day twice.

That's the system I have and that's how I do it, same for my family, we never leave it blasting if no one is home > Of course no one does it every day twice. Why not ? it takes like 5 seconds

Sounds like fair inconvenience to go through every room and then have cold until it finally heats up.
Post reply on HN