4 ms·

This is a really neat tool, but I'm having a hard time imagining situations where it'd be all that useful, where people from substantially different locations a

by wolrah 4y ago

This is a really neat tool, but I'm having a hard time imagining situations where it'd be all that useful, where people from substantially different locations all need to meet in person, but don't care where they're meeting. How often does that happen? Am I missing something?

jsharf 4y ago
I think for academic conferences, they typically choose a venue that changes every year. This could be used to aid in selecting a venue.
- Jolter 4y ago
  They won’t know who’s attending then they book the venue. It works the other way around, usually. And of course, if you don’t know who’s attending…
jameshart 4y ago
Remote-first companies encounter this problem all the time.
- ytdytvhxgydvhh 4y ago
  Do they? I feel like remote-first companies seem to enjoy having an excuse to travel to exciting destinations as a recruitment/retention perk. “We’re meeting in Kansas City because that minimizes emissions” likely doesn’t spark joy in the same way that “we’re meeting in the Bahamas because we’re cool and fun!” would.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    I refuse to fly to corporate meetings due to climate impact, and I have a few colleagues that do the same, so I don’t think this is universally true. I would respect a company that didn’t.
    - chroma 4y ago
      Depending on how you measure it, aircraft account for 1.9-3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The biggest source is electricity and heating, followed by ground transportation.[2] Compared to almost all other sources, air travel is a rounding error. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation 2. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
      - micromacrofoot 4y ago
        I also produce more electricity than I use with solar panels (including heat) and drive an ev less than 2500 miles a year… so I’m an extreme case. This isn’t realistic for everyone because of how the world is built, but the hardest part was saving for the upfront investment (I’ll start generating profit from solar once I’m 7 years in, probably less now because I haven’t recalculated faster than expected inflation). While not everyone can manage this due to upfront costs, a lot more people could do this, but simply don’t.
cagenut 4y ago
there is a small but growing cohort of people who both a.) work in all or predominantly remote orgs and b.) understand the carbon cost of flying. if your team meets those critera then this is the only way to make these decisions. even if your team doesn't entirely agree on b, those of us who do can use this to inform our votes on where to meet.
- wolrah 4y ago
  My emphasis for that sort of scenario would be on the *need* to meet in person aspect. I've been working remote exclusive for over a decade at this point and even though we're all in the same part of a single US state the last time more than two of us occupied the same building at the same time was years ago. The more people or travel groups you add to the equation the less likely it is in my mind that you actually needed to physically meet unless you're meeting to do something in the real world which usually can't be done absolutely anywhere. If you're not meeting somewhere specific to do a thing in that place why couldn't the meeting have been done virtually? Someone else suggested conferences, and I guess that could make sense in the case of small conferences where any random major airport hotel can handle their needs and a substantial portion of the attendees can be expected to vote, but it doesn't scale.
nottathrowaway3 4y ago
Because it's designed to optimize fuel efficiency, the use case is basically corporate greenwashing. HR: "our company meetup allows authentic inclusive in-person interactions, all while helping save the environment, by only releasing 1M tons of CO2 rather than 1.03M tons." The most environmentally friendly meeting is obviously one that happens online. In-person meetups increase retention but -- until teleportation is invented -- that retention comes at an environmental cost. A similar tool could be designed to minimize something else (cost, flight time, etc.) which would have a better use case outside corporate ESG politics.
userbinator 4y ago
It's just eco-virtue-signaling.

by wolrah 4y ago

jsharf 4y ago

I think for academic conferences, they typically choose a venue that changes every year. This could be used to aid in selecting a venue.

Jolter 4y ago
They won’t know who’s attending then they book the venue. It works the other way around, usually. And of course, if you don’t know who’s attending…

jameshart 4y ago

Remote-first companies encounter this problem all the time.

ytdytvhxgydvhh 4y ago
Do they? I feel like remote-first companies seem to enjoy having an excuse to travel to exciting destinations as a recruitment/retention perk. “We’re meeting in Kansas City because that minimizes emissions” likely doesn’t spark joy in the same way that “we’re meeting in the Bahamas because we’re cool and fun!” would.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  I refuse to fly to corporate meetings due to climate impact, and I have a few colleagues that do the same, so I don’t think this is universally true. I would respect a company that didn’t.
  - chroma 4y ago
    Depending on how you measure it, aircraft account for 1.9-3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The biggest source is electricity and heating, followed by ground transportation.[2] Compared to almost all other sources, air travel is a rounding error. 1. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions-from-aviation 2. https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
      I also produce more electricity than I use with solar panels (including heat) and drive an ev less than 2500 miles a year… so I’m an extreme case. This isn’t realistic for everyone because of how the world is built, but the hardest part was saving for the upfront investment (I’ll start generating profit from solar once I’m 7 years in, probably less now because I haven’t recalculated faster than expected inflation). While not everyone can manage this due to upfront costs, a lot more people could do this, but simply don’t.

cagenut 4y ago

there is a small but growing cohort of people who both a.) work in all or predominantly remote orgs and b.) understand the carbon cost of flying. if your team meets those critera then this is the only way to make these decisions. even if your team doesn't entirely agree on b, those of us who do can use this to inform our votes on where to meet.

wolrah 4y ago
My emphasis for that sort of scenario would be on the *need* to meet in person aspect. I've been working remote exclusive for over a decade at this point and even though we're all in the same part of a single US state the last time more than two of us occupied the same building at the same time was years ago. The more people or travel groups you add to the equation the less likely it is in my mind that you actually needed to physically meet unless you're meeting to do something in the real world which usually can't be done absolutely anywhere. If you're not meeting somewhere specific to do a thing in that place why couldn't the meeting have been done virtually? Someone else suggested conferences, and I guess that could make sense in the case of small conferences where any random major airport hotel can handle their needs and a substantial portion of the attendees can be expected to vote, but it doesn't scale.

nottathrowaway3 4y ago

Because it's designed to optimize fuel efficiency, the use case is basically corporate greenwashing. HR: "our company meetup allows authentic inclusive in-person interactions, all while helping save the environment, by only releasing 1M tons of CO2 rather than 1.03M tons." The most environmentally friendly meeting is obviously one that happens online. In-person meetups increase retention but -- until teleportation is invented -- that retention comes at an environmental cost. A similar tool could be designed to minimize something else (cost, flight time, etc.) which would have a better use case outside corporate ESG politics.

userbinator 4y ago

It's just eco-virtue-signaling.