5 ms·

I have a programmer friend who has a train pass and actually likes to take trains just to work. I also absolutely love reading for a few hours in trains, and at

I have a programmer friend who has a train pass and actually likes to take trains just to work. I also absolutely love reading for a few hours in trains, and at some point adjusted my lifestyle to switch town every 1-2 weeks.

mysterydip 4y ago
The one time I programmed on a train (central pennsylvania to new york city) was better than the times I've programmed on aircraft. Not sure if it was seat size, the consistency of altitude, smoothness, etc. But I'd love to do more work trips on a train.
- lucb1e 4y ago
  Don't forget the constant very loud plane engine noise, and the number of people in line of sight to distract you (a train is more elongated so you're further away from most other passengers). And as you already mentioned, a major factor for me would be the space to actually use a 15" laptop conveniently. Programming on a train means 30 minutes of crunch time and tangible progress for me; on a plane I can't imagine it being nice though I never tried it (for me flying is a wonderful experience, probably because I almost never do it and I love the perspective you have out the window and I monitor my phone's sensors like pressure and gps and everything, enjoying the special experience).
  - KptMarchewa 4y ago
    Modern trains are way quieter than planes though.
    - lucb1e 4y ago
      Oh darn I see that an edit I did made it confusing and I didn't re-read it anymore (edited again for clarity just now). I meant that planes are very loud whereas trains usually just whizz away. There are indeed some old trains that were very loud, I remember the NL Mat'64 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Mat_%2764 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Mat_%2764) where my phone (uncalibrated, so it'll have been wrong but I don't know by how much) said the employees had to be offered hearing protection and my subjective experience would say the same. For the 8 minutes that I spent in those local trains, it was perfectly fine and also hearing-safe afaik (don't try to drown it out with music as I did, though :/). Since the retirement of this model a few years ago, all trains I've been on in NL/DE are much quieter.
- 41b696ef1113 4y ago
  If nothing else, you can spend nearly all of the time working. No "please stow away your large electronic devices" 20+ minutes before takeoff/landing.
reustle 4y ago
Some friends and I do this in Japan, too (pre covid). Before leaving the US, I also tried to kick off a more structured version of this https://amhacks.com https://amhacks.com They were very “on board” with the idea, but internal inefficiencies slowed planning down to a snails pace.
kkfx 4y ago
So you like to waste gazillion of resources just to have a "mobile office"? Not to sound polemic but... That's is.
- radu_floricica 4y ago
  My friend, actually, not me. I'm the one reading :) The difference in resources for moving a traincar vs a traincar with me in it is... I think it might be measurable, with some effort. Definitely not relevant to anything.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Yes but the difference than build, maintain and move a traincar + all the rest needed by it to function vs not building, maintain nor move such trains is very measurable. Just as a simple home-made curious math: did you ever try to compute how much resources are needed to build cement, iron to made CA, iron for rails, metals for electrical infra dedicated to trains and rolling stock etc vs how much resources to build small personal VTOL/STOL to serve people in a vast riviera? Just consider that factories to build VTOL/STOL use very little steel, far less then rails, they use much aluminum a bit of copper and others minerals that pollute far less to be prepared and recycled and far less energy, such factories can be nearby mines/metallurgic industries/districts since they can fly directly their product, no heavy logistic required. No special infra, just a bit of flat natural soil. Sure, they demand energy, and they are LESS easy to power with renewables, but just compute how much less resource they demand initially and how flexible they are. Consider that they can last 50+ years with regular entertainment AS TRAINS but not as rails who demand much more work to be kept in good working conditions. Consider their recyclability. Just see https://i.redd.it/3gpp18t6d6291.png https://i.redd.it/3gpp18t6d6291.png where red area and green area represent the same population, at two different mean density, than consider an hypothetical society, a far less dense one, where we still have some dense area/hub/district for specific purpose (campus, factories etc) that for some reasons can't be distributed efficiently BUT THE REST is distributed. How much daily commuting we need? All eligible jobs WFH are done FH, most jobs are in a short range/locals. No complex metro/tall buildings and the hyper-big resources they needs. Anything can change since there is physical space to made changes etc. Is really utopia? I bet not. Actually seeing the actual real world the SOLE areas that have had a constant mean quality of life, good enough economy where rivieras. Sometimes cities have done better, economically only, but then they fall. Rarely very low density areas have done better. Rivieras have kept they status in almost all situations including wars and catastrophes. They do not demand cities to exists, while cities demand both rural and rivieras to exists since they consume foods, goods but they almost produce nothing behind the tertiary sector. Rural areas need industry. Rivieras normally have (some) industries embodied, residential and work areas mixed, they might be not totally self-sufficient but they are the least dependent on anything else. So, why keep concentrating in cities just to flee when something happen like with covid discovering that being in nature is better for those who can or like in China where cities was the richest and prized areas and now cities have unemployment far bigger than rural areas and much more foods provisioning issues? It's just habit? Just "we always do like that so we continue"? Something else I miss?

mysterydip 4y ago

The one time I programmed on a train (central pennsylvania to new york city) was better than the times I've programmed on aircraft. Not sure if it was seat size, the consistency of altitude, smoothness, etc. But I'd love to do more work trips on a train.

lucb1e 4y ago
Don't forget the constant very loud plane engine noise, and the number of people in line of sight to distract you (a train is more elongated so you're further away from most other passengers). And as you already mentioned, a major factor for me would be the space to actually use a 15" laptop conveniently. Programming on a train means 30 minutes of crunch time and tangible progress for me; on a plane I can't imagine it being nice though I never tried it (for me flying is a wonderful experience, probably because I almost never do it and I love the perspective you have out the window and I monitor my phone's sensors like pressure and gps and everything, enjoying the special experience).
- KptMarchewa 4y ago
  Modern trains are way quieter than planes though.
  - lucb1e 4y ago
    Oh darn I see that an edit I did made it confusing and I didn't re-read it anymore (edited again for clarity just now). I meant that planes are very loud whereas trains usually just whizz away. There are indeed some old trains that were very loud, I remember the NL Mat'64 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Mat_%2764 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Mat_%2764) where my phone (uncalibrated, so it'll have been wrong but I don't know by how much) said the employees had to be offered hearing protection and my subjective experience would say the same. For the 8 minutes that I spent in those local trains, it was perfectly fine and also hearing-safe afaik (don't try to drown it out with music as I did, though :/). Since the retirement of this model a few years ago, all trains I've been on in NL/DE are much quieter.
41b696ef1113 4y ago
If nothing else, you can spend nearly all of the time working. No "please stow away your large electronic devices" 20+ minutes before takeoff/landing.

reustle 4y ago

Some friends and I do this in Japan, too (pre covid). Before leaving the US, I also tried to kick off a more structured version of this https://amhacks.com https://amhacks.com They were very “on board” with the idea, but internal inefficiencies slowed planning down to a snails pace.

kkfx 4y ago

So you like to waste gazillion of resources just to have a "mobile office"? Not to sound polemic but... That's is.

radu_floricica 4y ago
My friend, actually, not me. I'm the one reading :) The difference in resources for moving a traincar vs a traincar with me in it is... I think it might be measurable, with some effort. Definitely not relevant to anything.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Yes but the difference than build, maintain and move a traincar + all the rest needed by it to function vs not building, maintain nor move such trains is very measurable. Just as a simple home-made curious math: did you ever try to compute how much resources are needed to build cement, iron to made CA, iron for rails, metals for electrical infra dedicated to trains and rolling stock etc vs how much resources to build small personal VTOL/STOL to serve people in a vast riviera? Just consider that factories to build VTOL/STOL use very little steel, far less then rails, they use much aluminum a bit of copper and others minerals that pollute far less to be prepared and recycled and far less energy, such factories can be nearby mines/metallurgic industries/districts since they can fly directly their product, no heavy logistic required. No special infra, just a bit of flat natural soil. Sure, they demand energy, and they are LESS easy to power with renewables, but just compute how much less resource they demand initially and how flexible they are. Consider that they can last 50+ years with regular entertainment AS TRAINS but not as rails who demand much more work to be kept in good working conditions. Consider their recyclability. Just see https://i.redd.it/3gpp18t6d6291.png https://i.redd.it/3gpp18t6d6291.png where red area and green area represent the same population, at two different mean density, than consider an hypothetical society, a far less dense one, where we still have some dense area/hub/district for specific purpose (campus, factories etc) that for some reasons can't be distributed efficiently BUT THE REST is distributed. How much daily commuting we need? All eligible jobs WFH are done FH, most jobs are in a short range/locals. No complex metro/tall buildings and the hyper-big resources they needs. Anything can change since there is physical space to made changes etc. Is really utopia? I bet not. Actually seeing the actual real world the SOLE areas that have had a constant mean quality of life, good enough economy where rivieras. Sometimes cities have done better, economically only, but then they fall. Rarely very low density areas have done better. Rivieras have kept they status in almost all situations including wars and catastrophes. They do not demand cities to exists, while cities demand both rural and rivieras to exists since they consume foods, goods but they almost produce nothing behind the tertiary sector. Rural areas need industry. Rivieras normally have (some) industries embodied, residential and work areas mixed, they might be not totally self-sufficient but they are the least dependent on anything else. So, why keep concentrating in cities just to flee when something happen like with covid discovering that being in nature is better for those who can or like in China where cities was the richest and prized areas and now cities have unemployment far bigger than rural areas and much more foods provisioning issues? It's just habit? Just "we always do like that so we continue"? Something else I miss?