mathverse

42 ms·

1. 541.▲
   by mathverse 5y ago

   I dont find them particularly livable.Yeah maybe when you are in your 20-later 30s then they are livable but they are absolutely dreadful when it comes to having a family. All that convenience that you see is there because of that fast pace
2. 542.▲
   by mathverse 5y ago

   >The house/apartment you live in is still there (because you still live in it) regardless of if you WFH. The difference is if you WFH, it's actually being utilized 100% of the time instead of just at night and on weekends. Conv
3. 543.▲
   by mathverse 5y ago

   >There won't be increased consumption at 7 AM and at 5 PM on a weekday if less people commute. I just don't see it happening. Additionally the tech industry isn't exactly a groundswell of people either -- if all tech worke
4. 544.▲
   by mathverse 5y ago

   In my opinion this is an argument fallacy.Almost any economic activity causes pollution and spike in environmental and economic costs. Moving to WFH will not do anything to reduce emissions and it could actually lead to an opposite outcome
5. 545.▲
   by mathverse 5y ago

   Would not it be cheaper to implement follow the sun model and have engineers in different timezones?