4 ms·
It's an existential issue. Carbon emissions are literally killing people, and are bound to kill many more millions if we don't change our ways. So if the cook
by Hackbraten 3y ago
It's an existential issue.
Carbon emissions are literally killing people, and are bound to kill many more millions if we don't change our ways.
So if the cooks and nurses and truck drivers have no choice, then I'd say that it's our duty to work remotely in order to do our part in reducing emissions.
- analognoise 3y agoExactly - these same cooks and nurses are so anti-worker that they can’t see fellow workers having a positive outcome and be pleased, while simultaneously dealing with less traffic? Press X to doubt; sounds like billionaire brainwashing noise to me.
- itishappy 3y agoYes, we need more tech workers to save the world from all the cooks, nurses, and truck drivers out here literally killing people with their emissions.
- Hackbraten 3y agoNot sure what your point is.
- itishappy 3y agoSkepticism about the environmental impact and motivations of the tech sector - an industry that consumes vast amounts of energy for largely intangible ends. I suspect you've got your story flipped on it's head and the people with the largest impact are not cooks, nurses, and truck drivers, but software engineers. The comment you replied to asked us to consider the views of the rest of the population. Well, my point is that framing the WFH/RTO debate as a duty to the environment while selling ads for a living does indeed look entitled and a bit spoiled.
- globular-toast 3y agoA place I used to work you had people transporting their 100kg sack of meat in a 2000kg car over 100 miles every single day just to place said sack of meat at a desk and be on Zoom (well, Skype at the time) calls all day. And this happened day in day out with nobody ever questioning the sanity of such a practice.