I know of a company where they want anyone within 90m to commute, so that's up to three hours lost in a day, making an 8 hour workday actually 11+ hours
I somewhat frequently get recruiter mail from NYC-based companies. If it's clear the position is in office, I usually include the same bit in every response: I live ~75 minutes away by train. Make the commute free or heavily discounted for me and I'll come in the three days a week. Plus, since I won't be driving, I can do some work on the train.
I’m always confused why the default commute time in these discussions is always 60 or 90 minutes one way. 60+ minute commutes are outliers and I don’t understand why a person would take a job that far away without being aware of the commute or moving closer to the work. Does that make sense? Most American commute 10-30 minutes. That’s the middle of the bell curve.
> 60+ minute commutes are outliers and I don’t understand why a person would take a job that far away without being aware of the commute or moving closer to the work
60+ minute commute times are very common where I live. If you are anywhere outside of the downtown area you either pay for parking (expensive) and have a shorter commute, or you use public transit (cheap) and have a long commute.
When I used to commute to an office it was easily an hour to an hour and a half each way every day. I hated it
When I commuted semi-regularly into a downtown office, it was a good 90 minutes. Latterly, going into a newer company's customer briefing center was more like 2 hours each way. I had access to commuter rail which was more pleasant than driving so long as I didn't have an evening dinner/event. but it took about the same length of time.
One answer to the parent's question is that I owned/own a house which was a pretty manageable 25 minute suburban commute which I wasn't going to sell just because I got a new job. (Which didn't last that long anyway.)
Yes, I get the sense that this varies a lot depending on area and economic strata.
In the poor rural area my hometown is located, 1-3h+ commutes aren't unusual, partially out of necessity (there aren't enough jobs nearby to sustain the population).
You're on a board full of technologists. Many are in SF or Seattle or NYC. A 10minute commute means you live in a 5-20 Million dollar home in SF. Not sure how realistic that is.
I work in NYC. The salary doesnt support having a home in the city. Yes, it can support a 1br apt, perhaps a 2br with roommates. Definitely not accomodations for a family.
i think there is a big diff between 10-30min and 45min
your 45min assessment is probably right for early career. once you have a family, it gets much harder and less common
We’re in a weird period where a lot of jobs went fully remote around COVID, many weren’t prepared for it, and now they’re doing the opposite over-reaction and forcing everyone back.
A lot of the people I know who went remote after COVID took remote jobs at new companies (remember “the great resignation”?) or moved to a new house because they thought they were done with commuting. Then their companies said they wanted everyone back.
Laptop professionals who make enough money to own and buy a nice house in the suburbs but not FU money to buy in the city. I count myself in this category.
If you don't make enough to consider buying, you might as well rent close. If you are super rich, you can buy in the city or don't have to worry about building home equity.
I could see the average commute being 20-30 minutes without traffic. I cannot see that being the average in any area with even a small amount of morning/evening traffic.
I mean, in a lot of these cases people take those jobs because they're able to work remotely initially... and then get hit with an inflexible, top-down RTO mandate once they've settled into the role.
I do this too, but it's important to make sure you're either fully adopting them to keep them inside and care for medical issues, or at least make sure they get neutered/spayed before they're let out again if they can't live indoors. Stray cats are terrible for the local ecology- just feeding them without taking those steps is definitely harmful. In my town you can call animal control for strays and they'll clip the ears so you can see that they can't reproduce and are safe to leave out.
I'd also be hesitant to give people the idea that racoons are safe to interact with, even stray cats can be dangerous, but racoons can do much more damage. I feel like the ideal situation is they capture him and find an animal sanctuary away from the public. Wild animals with genetic issues don't usually live a great life
Or you can just toss some food out and call it a day
This ideology that all stray animals need to be siphoned up and neutered on the spot is bizarre to me. Sure there is a balance to be struck as you can't have a hundred thousand cats in a small area, but this idea that stray cats and dogs are simply not allowed to exist and reproduce naturally is insane.
Have you ever lived in a place where there aren’t effective control efforts?
These programs aren’t about people feeling good about themselves. The middle ground you suggest IS neutering and spaying all the animals you can find. The more extreme end of control is culls. It isn’t something you can ignore without pretty serious second order effects.
It ends up being pretty grim for the animals and sometimes humans too when stray population isn’t controlled. I’m talking about the conditions these animals end up enduring, not the culling which is its own grim process.
As someone who had to help get a stray cat population under control the ugly way (limited budget in a developing country), I would much rather that strays get fixed before it gets there.
I live in New Zealand, where they are big efforts to cull non-native wildlife, including all mammalian predators. There are traplines through the woods here, and I remember seeing a Department of Conservation visitor centre with a diorama of stray cats being killed by a kill trap.
Locally we've got an overpopulation of goats, and apparently they're going to start shooting them from helicopters.
They also drop a poison bait called 1080 that kills mammals from helicopters in remote regions here.
Domestic cats and dogs are not native to the Americas. They are pets or work animals. The cats should be adopted if possible and made indoor cats or neutered to keep their invasive population down. Dogs too, you need to treat feral dogs as wild and excellent rabies spreaders.
Do you know if this balances out to a lower death count than the heatwave would have, or just better for people in that area? Even thinking just about the US south I'd imagine heat is a bigger risk than hurricanes
> widespread drought and famine in multiple countries, causing the death of more than 50 million people. Disasters associated with it include the Great Famine of 1876–1878 in India, the Grande Seca in Brazil, and the Northern Chinese Famine of 1876–1879.
I'd argue that the "rampant cynicism and nihilism" and more a result of the environment than algorithms manipulating people, the content is also made by other people, and it just serves up what people want. Your feed is often just a reflection of what you're feeling since everyone has their own feed instead of the reddit or HN approach with a shared feed. Also the phrase is that a few bad apples spoil the batch, nobody cares about the rest of the batch until you can get rid of the bad ones
I'm much more a descriptivist than prescriptivist so if there's a pattern among people I'm inclined to think it's a true issue instead of people just thinking "wrong" en-masse
"Your feed is often just a reflection of what you're feeling"
No it is not. The feed is optimized for what will increase the intensity of feelings, and bad feelings are more easily optimized than good. Meta (patient zero for this nonsense) has pretty much said so, multiple times.
" more a result of the environment than algorithms"
What environment? People are sitting on their algorithms for 100x more time than any physical environment.
The one seeing themselves or co-workers laid off while companies report record earnings.
The ones seeing a CEO tank a company then move on to the next company next week with a huge pay package.
The one seeing their little sibling or kid graduate with honors and multiple internships, and having the complete inability to get a job in their field.
Do I need to explain more? Media reflects reality at the end of the day. You acn talk about doomscrolling, but part of it only works because exaggeration always starts by exploiting some truth you've seen first hand.
i dont think hating on ivy league types is that common, and 90% of people have no real life experience with this kind of thing, or are even aware of how corporate hiring/funding works at the higher level.
Ah thank you! Sorry didn't know about those, I do still think they should keep it off the homepage but if that's their policy then that's their prerogative haha
Agreed with this, and it also doesn't seem like this is the case but I'm generally a fan of charging B2B as high as possible to lower costs for regular consumers - other companies will generally pay a lot more even if it just includes the potential of getting better support, and that profit can be used to give access to more people at a lower price.
A lot of open source software uses this model - free for everyone, but if you're a company that wants support then you have to pay for it, and that covers the development for everyone
The price increased by $10,000 per month. United's 737-800's seat 166 passengers, so assuming each plane has 5 flights per day, that would only make the average ticket about 40 cents more expensive.
I don't think this is literally true, but as an example an employee might not justify their wage in a single quarter but have a huge impact over time. In the short term firing them makes the company more profitable, but that's definitely not a good way to run a business. Everything is gambling now :/
This is what I'd expect from companies - I don't see why Facebook would get money because they helped people connect to each other who ended up developing a cancer cure, but they definitely should be held accountable for enabling a genocide. You're allowed to operate a business until you cause harm to society, then we can shut it down.
I think the big thing you would need is to see the internal emails - if there was ever a case where someone raised a concern about this possibility and it wasn't taken seriously, then they should be liable. If they just never thought about it then it could be negligence but I think if I was on a jury I'd find that more reasonable than knowing it could be a problem and deciding you aren't responsible
> I don't see why Facebook would get money because they helped people connect to each other who ended up developing a cancer cure, but they definitely should be held accountable for enabling a genocide.
Why? What does it even mean to "enable a genocide"? Just saying something isn't an argument.
> if there was ever a case where someone raised a concern about this possibility and it wasn't taken seriously, then they should be liable.
Again, why? How is this any different than electricity as a tool, which has both beneficial and harmful uses? AI is knowledge as a utility, that's the position here.
