During my early days in my tech career. I joined a small tech firm that did linux kernel programming and embedded stuff. It was my first job out of college and I was really excited. My mentor was a 50+ guy whom I walked everyday from work to back my home. It didn't started out like that, we would leave work around different times and one day it was raining, so we waited and then it became sort of habit. I learned so much about programming and life in general. Made me a better programmer for sure. I'm always grateful!
With remote, everything has to be highly intentional. Schedule a meeting means having a pre-defined time, often there is a specific topic of conversation in mind, people diligently stick to that topic as much as possible to respect everyone's calendar etc. Collaboration tends to play out within these extremely narrow parameters that are unnatural to hundreds of years of human social development. It doesn't help that the best substitute - video conferencing - still strips a lot of crucial information that you're used to getting in person for modulating conversation (eg. ability to scan body language and facial expressions of people in the room as you talk) and find moments to interject.
This is just because of culture and the tools that we use.
I rarely get this feeling when using Discord due to the culture if "just hanging out" in channels.
Some people in the channels I frequent will stream their screens by default, just in case anyone wants to see what they are playing at any given time.
All that behind said, I hope this model doesn't become an expectation for remote work, because constantly being forced to stream, or be present for long periods of time in voice channels sounds exhausting.
This is a very incorrect and overly prescriptive view based on your, to use your own term, narrow experience. I vastly prefer meetings and collaboration to be remote. People who dominate in person meetings due to their body language and personality are not nearly ad oppressive over zoom.
I would make the exact opposite claim. Since Covid and working from home the quality of my teams’ collaboration and decision making quality has gone through the roof. Quality of promotions has gone up significantly, you’re no longer rewarded for just being the loudest monkey in the room with an opinion. The only metric that has suffered in any measurable way is onboarding and mentoring young engineers who do not yet know how to learn. You have to be much more active and sensitive to their state. In general I look back at that era of my career as archaic. Everyone that wants to go back to that way of working seems dinosaurs who operate on their feelings rather than the data of how quality work is done.
Just noting I didn't prescribe anything or state my personal preference anywhere.
It was merely an observation after working remotely for about as long as I've worked in person and I don't really appreciate you adding words like "loudest monkey" and "dinosaurs" to my statement.
But lately I've been going into office and the throughput of technical discussions is just an order of magnitude higher than in video calls or over Slack.
I've been WFH-ing for a long time now and am usually the person being approached for advice and mentoring. I never found the efficiency of the process to be lacking or as you describe "order of magnitude" worse remotely vs F2F.
As I'm always open to learning new things and changing my opinion, could you please elaborate on how the direct contact makes mentoring so much better?
> and am usually the person being approached for advice and mentoring. I never found the efficiency of the process to be lacking
That's a good exmple for GP's point: deliberate, premeditated interaction works just fine remotely. But everything else falls away. That talk amongst the almost random subset of meeting A that happens to be also in meeting B and walks from A to B together, things like that. Occasional random peerings are powerful and a company chatroulette would be an awkward substitute.
Just my experience, but people are more inclined to ask questions in person. Beyond this, you get cues from body language as well as facial expression.
For me personally, I can see a white board better at 15-20' than I can see a monitor 30" away.
There are ways to digitally cope... But it's just that. It's far less natural if an interaction. I can understand the anxiety and autistic resistance to it. But that's relatively easy to with through.
I'm naturally far sighted, with some retina damage to boot. Glasses help a bit, but not a lot, and with the retina damage it's inconsistent throughout the day.
Fortunately, most of the apps I use can adjust zoom (mostly vs code, browser, visio, etc).
This is my diagnosis of all of these WFH discussions. People like the benefits of remote work so much that they are (subconsciously) trying to deny any possible problems and the "back to the office" trend can only have nefarious motivation.
If you trade commute time for work, WFH is hard to beat for work, because you have so much more time to make up for less efficient communication. If you trade commute time for not work, WFO is hard to beat.
It really depends on office culture. Every time we're all in the office at the same time, we end up going to the nearest bar. WFH is just more productive cause of that.
Someone once said all my friends are like me, they all hate people.
I would have never met any of them WFH. Anecdotes aside, we’re a much better species in person enforcing social behaviors than maximizing antisocial behavior for some optimization argument.
If WFH was productive, this websites front page would be nothing but studies proving that. It’s been four years and… nothing.
Nobody is even writing documentation now, so you can’t even tell the kids to RTFM.
That's more like good mentoring, which doesn't always depend on being in the office, it can work remote as well if the mentors are good at it and want to do it. A year ago I left a shitty toxic office job where there was no such thing as mentoring either way, least of all remote.
Feels like quality mentoring is a lost art these days, especially amongst the SW industry of today of younger generation of workers and companies, where the average life of a piece of code is measured in months, and tenure in the company is around 2-3 years, nobody bothered with training since the code would be obsolete, you'd be gone soon anyway or they'd loose the only guy who still loved teaching others.
Everything now is "just look it up on the (outdated) Wiki or figure it out on your own".
> Things like this is the reason I don't work from home. Those little moments of contact.
I, too, miss this. However, 2 things that work against me currently - my company has _mandated_ in-office time, which was not the deal when I joined so is an active reason to NOT go, and I live 30 miles/1 hour away from it, as do many. One of my colleagues is 2.5 hours away, across a time zone.
So the office is extremely 'dead' in culture/atmosphere, providing the bare minimum to get work done, and is a glass-walled fishbowl in a shared office space with a GIANT (think, measured in meters/yards) TV display in the courtyard that we can see. Indeed, one can't NOT see it.
While I enjoy the time with the people there, there's zero "serendipity" of the place since most everyone goes by fiat, not choice, and spends most of their energy on trying to remove the constant distractions.
C-Level: We want culture!
us: You removed every possible input that would make it work.
C: But we want it!
u: give us an office space with some private areas + some collaborative as-needed areas.
I took what I got, which is less than you assume, and didn't demand more. You seem to think I'm arguing against mentorship entirely. I'm not.
I know the value. I didn't get much; I barely even knew my father. I'm going to get distasteful for a moment because of that. You've been warned.
To answer your snide fucking remark: I did in fact succeed without coaching. I wouldn't be so harsh if I hadn't just read you go after someone for a similar attack. Amazing.
Now, back to civility.
There has to be a limit. We don't make seniors to collect them. We have a job to do beyond sustaining the ranks.
Also: it's a subjective title. Who's to say I'm not a junior that snuck in?
Among the pool of seniors there's no consistency in capabilities. It's all arbitrary. Calm down and go back to work.
To close all of this, nobody is owed a promotion or even attention. Selection has to happen. Maybe that's not you this time. Sorry.
While I work from home, I have traveled to teach and attend classes. I get it. I try to use the advantages of both.
It's well established that the way to move up in the industry is by changing jobs. I don't like it but that's how it is. We can team up but I don't like our odds.
Easy mate, take a deep breath. No need to blow your top off over a trivial remark. My observation was not meant to be in bad faith. I'm sorry you took it that way.
Sure, but don't blame your overreaction on others. If someone cuts in front of you in trafic and you get out of the car and beat them up with a a baseball bat in response, it's not an excuse that's gonna hold up in court. Someone's mistake is on them, but your reaction is always on you.
this entire sub-thread and dialogue is like an advertisement for finding a mentor as quick as possible.
on one hand you're talking about how you made it without one, then on the other hand you're also commiserating about being a (metaphorical) homeless lottery winner.
if I was a young'n in the industry i'd read this entire dialogue as a cautionary tale in the same kind of vein as a Zen koan or Aesop fable.
Definitely. Mentorship is symbiotic. I'll even argue therapeutic.
I lacked a lot of it through both work and personal lives. Simply left to figure things out. That, of course, had some impact. Certain skills are strong, others are weak.
I feel that's why I do well at SRE. Natural paranoia and so on. It also makes me goal oriented to the point of being nearly anti-social.
Overall, I'd say I'm worse off for my experiences. It makes me great when the sky is falling. It pretty much always is.
Due to that, I try to reflect and teach as much as I can. I'm one of the fortunate ones. While I'm here, I had to leave a lot of people behind. They can't speak at all.
That sounds like a war story, but aside from the 'atomic family', I'm really just talking about people who quit/moved elsewhere.
Filtering exists in the real world (work/personal), too - not just college. The things we do, and don't do, apply.
A weekly social event would do me a world of good, but I can't. That part of me is broken. Dress it up with work and I'm fine.
Helping people actually helps me. To hear that, no actually - my help isn't enough, was grating. It was wrong to take personally. Soft spot.
These kind of things aren't really summarizable into a quick bite is my experience. It's because of the subtle nuances, the way an experienced person approaches a problem.
His office was not a multi-storey air-conditioned open plan aquarium where 30-something idiots commuting from the leafy counties of Kent want to discuss how they got pissed last night and who feel compelled to bond with software devs by showing them the latest "take a selfie and see it mapped onto a baboon arse" app. I would love to have the opportunity to go on walks with a mentor, but the only available ones are frustrated, scared managers who think of themselves as thought leaders or aloof top managers/founders who think of themselves as geniuses when they are a) well-connected public school crowd keeping the riffraff out of their lives, b) clever, but not genius operators happy to ride their teams to the ground to cover up lack of planning. The best I could get out of them is beers on a Thursday night. Thanks.
I wonder what caused all this madness. Doesn't it degrade productivity? And thereby hurt profitability? And thereby the attractiveness of such strategies?
It sometimes seem to me like profit motive has been replaced by a power motive, like money isn't real anymore, but the legitimacy of private ownership is.
Basically aristocracy 2.0.
I'd be happy to hear your thoughts on this, and why there aren't competitive alternatives in an otherwise free market.
Trust fund kids do not need to work, they just choose to do so and they like to watch lower management jump up trying to catch the carrot dangled in front of them. Aristocracy never disappeared only it took them a while to learn how to use modern inventions. Look at who's working as a "trustee" for a lot of projects and watch how everyone is trying to lick their arse in the most imaginative ways.
Around that time Oppenheimer became the director of the Institute of Advanced Studies where this took place. His idea was to invite there various talented people, giving them grants to work on whatever they wish. Most of them were in science, but he also managed to get T. S. Eliot.
Article adds that they walked to office at 10-11, walked home FROM office at 1-2 (so they spent at most 3 hours at the institute) and in effect this took up 30% of Einstein's workday.
If anything, it's subtle "do what you love" propaganda.
99% of working population doesn't have Albert Einstein's brilliance in order to provide the same kind of value with 3h of "office work" per day.
Plus I think Albert Einstein and other scientists like him were constantly working in their heads anyway, constantly thinking about how to solve that problem, regardless of how much time they spent in an office. So trying to deduct some kind of productivity metric between his office time and results would be pointless (it's pointless for most knowledge jobs, but especially for his.)
Counting the number of hours in science does not really matter. This work is full of incredibly productive eureka minutes in the middle of unlucky boring days or weeks of stunted progress. Scientists don't stop thinking on the problems when they go home. Some significant advances happened even by scientists while dreaming. In some cases sleeping time definitely should count as hours on office, having in mind the results.
If we could remove the bureaucracy load from them, scientists could work even less hours without losing productivity or even increasing it (See: Stephen Hawking).
I initially lived for 2 years a mere 200 m. from Einstein's house as all Princeton PhD students are required, so I know what you're trying to convey, but the broader problem is in the interpretation of this anecdotes for nonacademic work and how it gets exploited to tell tertiary industry / knowledge workers to find what they love so that it doesn't count as labor.
So, they walked to campus together, spent about two hours there, then walked home together. It sounds more like just sharing a long daily walk with a stopover at the office.
bonding over walks is actually one of the best ways of communicating your thoughts with the other person. ofc I don't have any research or anything to back it up, but whenever i hit a blocker in life, i take a walk with my bestfriend in and around the college campus. 99% of the problem is solved by the end of it. however if i do the same thing elsewhere, like our room or some place to eat, the flow of thoughts isn't that coherent or fruitful. maybe the active work of walking stimulates our brains to think out stuff properly.
When you're 67 and basically retired (as Einstein was at this time)?
By contrast, in his 20s, he wrote 4 highly-influential papers in a single year, in his spare time while also working full-time at the Swiss patent office.
Was it? Slacking off doesn't become "work" just because it lead to something more important than the job itself. See also, Feynman, who was quite openly talking about the idea that you need to goof off a bit to do anything interesting.
Nah, this wasn't work, that sounds more like the hobby that's in love-hate relationship with the work (need work to live, but it takes time and energy from the hobby).
It's not a very narrow interpretation of work - it's the one that matters in this context, and the one that matters day-to-day. Sure, you could define work as anything one did that had results you find interesting, but the narrower definition that's important here is things you do because you have to, because you're obliged to do them by others or by circumstances, vs. things you do for fun - because you want to, and which you control. A job vs. a hobby is a good approximation. It's not uncommon to see people being much more effective at their hobbies than at their jobs, even when both of them are in the same domain. It's also not uncommon to see a hobby to be more worthwhile than one's work.
You can flush your cache to relax. It takes effort. Usually 2 days of different activities.
I schedule 2-3 days at home, just lazying in front of TV or playing games to flush job out of my brain before starting vacations, to prevent carrying job over to the vacation and spoiling it.
10 hour work weeks are 520 work hours in a year. Even if you get paid $100 per hour, you’d have to heavily rely on govt benefits to support your family. (Avg. non subsidized health insurance costs for a family of 4 are $24000/year)
Doesn’t really then apply to anyone and everyone. Not like I can abandon my child or an ailing parent anytime I want. (Which is my point)
Besides, not marrying and having kids can be a choice that’s relatively easy. But cutting ties with your parents especially when they need you can be a difficult one.
In the UK, an industry body annually publishes estimates of retirement income needs. USD$52k is GBP£41k which is about enough for a “comfortable” retirement for a single and a “moderate level” retirement for a couple. We have good free healthcare of course.
Many people who “FIRE” in their 40s and 50s have targets that allow drawdowns much smaller than this.
When you hit 67, you’ll also receive USD$15k pa state pension, provided you worked for 35 years, even if you continue to work.
If you’re still a “family of 4”, it’ll take a bit more.
When you are fit you have a lower probability of events leading to trauma because you have better balance, reaction time, and strength when needed.
You can see this from the inverse too: as you age all of those factors (muscle strength, reaction time) diminish, as do other issues (osteoporosis) so falls become both more frequent and more serious.
Yes, you can be hit by a car at any age, and some fitness enthusiasts engage in activities that can lead to sudden injury (e.g. skiing). But in general, the OP is correct.
If you don't engage in high risk activities, you are almost certainly not going to break your leg. It's common knowledge that the young healthy folks who don't go adrenaline-chasing are subsidizing healthcare for everyone else. If you fit into that group, you're getting fleeced by everyone else your insurance company underwrites.
Personally, I've been on Medi-Cal for years. I've never taken a cent from it, nor have I paid a cent into it (not counting the taxes I pay). It's great. I feel bad for all the folks that haven't figured it out yet.
This reminds me of recently going to a hospital and there was a guy, probably around 20 years old, who had broken leg casted from heel to thigh. He has his friend cruising him around on just the back wheels of his wheel chair, running at full speed in circles on the minimal area there was. It's really a wonder how this kid broke his leg to begin with. The mysteries of life.
Something extremely interesting is looking at life expectancy in the past. I assume you, like most people, think people probably just tended to start dropping dead around 40, if not earlier. In reality, people tended to live comparably long to modern times, if they made it to adulthood. It's just that infant mortality was way higher. If one guy dies in childbirth, and another dies at 80 - you have a life expectancy of 40.
You can find evidence for this in numerous ways. For instance studies looking at classical Greeks 'of renown', found a median life expectancy was 70, and average life expectancy was 71.3. [1] Even in the Bible one finds numbers that match up basically exactly, 'Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.' You can also find things like the minimum age for Roman Consuls being 42 years, and so on endlessly.
And all of this was in an era when there were no vaccines, no knowledge of germs or how disease spread, and when cutting edge medical science had to do with balancing the 4 humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) with some sort of an elemental association of air/water/fire/earth with each. Eating well and exercising can indeed take you extremely far, because it damn sure wasn't their healthcare doing it. That said modern medicine has basically been a miracle worker for childhood survival, but once you make it to adulthood - your body is strong enough, or can be made strong enough, to get you most of the way to your expiration date.
> people probably just tended to start dropping dead around 40, if not earlier. In reality, people tended to live comparably long to modern times, if they made it to adulthood
That’s not really true, though. As recently as ~1900 the likelihood of dying in your 20s or 30s was many times higher than now. Various infectious diseases were a huge risk at any age (even if the old/young severely disproportionately affected). Tuberculosis alone was a huge and killed massive amounts of young people every year, just consider how many artists, writers etc. died from it in the 20s/30s/40s and how it was a constant theme in fiction throughout the 1800s. Other currently easily treatable illnesses, malnutrition and/or dietary deficiencies resulted in a significant reduction in QoL even if they didn’t kill directly.
> For instance studies looking at classical Greeks 'of renown', found a median life expectancy was 70, and average life expectancy was 71.3
That’s mainly survivorship bias. Also I don’t think it’s actually true at all..
There were a few geographic pockets were average life expectancy if you survived childhood was close to that due to favorable climatic conditions, low population densities and abundance of resources/land (e.g. colonial New England) but for most of the population even in the most developed European societies that wasn’t the case.
Absolutely agreed on the dietary and other issues, and I think that largely ties into this point well. It wasn't survivorship bias because nearly all of the Ancient Greeks we know of would still have gone down in history whether they had died at 40 or at 80. But there is one major bias. Nearly all were upper class with ready access to the base necessities for a healthy life - clean food, clean water, basic sanitation (toilets/baths), and the ability to avoid the impacts of war.
I think you'll find that if you choose nearly to any comparable sample with similar access, near to regardless of the time era, you will again find life expectancy comparable to modern times. For instance here it is for the ten most famous Founding Fathers (data from GPT for convenience, so hallucinations are possible, but it matches up with my knowledge as well) :
---
George Washington 67 Acute epiglottitis
Thomas Jefferson 83 Natural causes (suspected kidney disease)
John Adams 90 Natural causes
Benjamin Franklin 84 Pleurisy
James Madison 85 Congestive heart failure
Alexander Hamilton 47 Gunshot wound (duel)
John Jay 83 Stroke
James Monroe 73 Heart failure and tuberculosis
Samuel Adams 81 Tremor, possible Parkinson's disease
Patrick Henry 63 Stomach cancer
---
The average age at death, excluding Alexander Hamilton, was 78.8, for people born from ~1700 to 1750! But yeah, like you mentioned - a major issue with is the masses at large were living in crowded unsanitary conditions while and eating/drinking unclean food, often while working dangerous jobs. So I think biasing our sample to the upper class of times past is quite beneficial because now a days even the poor have relatively widespread access to these 'luxuries', so we are more able to compare just life with and without modern medicine/knowledge.
Umm...have you had a broken leg? Sure, it needs to be immobilized (set and put in a cast). But after that you're body does all of the work, which requires proper nutrition. And then after that you need a great deal of exercise to rebuild muscle and relearn neural musculature control.
But more to the point, a well trained body will hardly ever get into a state where it needs medical attention. Most broken bones are due to poor muscle control and lack of strength later in life (think hip fractures). This can be mitigated by strength training that involves similar dynamic movements.
One of my fondest memories is the moment I realized that I was walking and sitting in the same parks and benches that Heisenberg and Bohr did while they uncovered the secrets of the really small. Being in such an environment is ... quite special, it's different to the outside world.
It doesn't quite match the experience those two had talking with each other, but it was quite the experience.
There's a story that when Bohr came to pick up Einstein at Copenhagen Central station, they took the tram (line 1) to Bohr's institute in Østerbro, but they became so engrossed in their conversation that they went all the way to the end in Hellerup and back again.
Line 1 was later replaced by a bus, and until the metro opened a few years ago (when most of the busses were changed), you could still go the same route from the central station to the Niels Bohr institute. Or Hellerup, if you had someone interesting to talk to.
Consider that they were both German speaking, and Einstein had never fully switched to English. For example he would only publish his research in German.
I probably wouldn't mind spending 30% of my workday walking home with either Gödel or Einstein, even if it meant I was only getting paid 70% of my normal salary.
When I worked last the lunchtime walk was a daily ritual - through heathland next to the site. When I became a line manager to my peers, it was also where we had the unofficial chats - where I was ‘me’ rather than corporate. That walk is the thing I miss most about working, as a retiree
A little off-topic but there's this amazing documentary on Einstein: Genius. It has three seasons and the first one is all about Einstein. It's a really accurate description of all the important events in his professional as well as personal life
Successful people's currency is not money but networking and working with great people is one of the best part in life as the last point of Sam Altman's list is probably the most wise of advice from the list [1].
>17. Working with great people is one of the best parts of life
I think this is why teleworking proponents are missing the important point. Meeting in person for example having lunch with co-workers can create eureka moment that online discussions hard or impossible to replicate. The game changing Transformer early concept was discussed and proposed in Google cafeteria. The legendary AT&T cafeteria environment as mentioned by Hamming was a prime example where many of inventors and Nobel Prizes recipients gathered, is now very difficult or nearly impossible to replicate in the industry [2].
I might have 100 friends, but only ~10 people can change my thoughts and only on specific subjects.
As I get older, the more those 100 friends are for enjoyment and happiness. Those 10 people are for growth. I think in my 20s, I took a bit more of a democratic approach.
One of the best parts about money, I can pay smart people for consulting.
That is a search problem. Finding people for consulting is not easy if it is about issues where only a few could know about and they can be living in a very distant place. For example, an unknown university in a country you never though about.
Wise people recognize that the concept of smart is easy when you play in a competitive field like chess but the problem is when there is no specific field to benchmark. Could you recognize Steve Jobs capacity if it not were by Apple?
Why can only 10 people change some of your thoughts?
I probably only have about 10 friends, but I’m open to any of many billions of people changing my thoughts in profound ways after even fleeting moments. It’s not just an openness but lived experience.
Hey, I’m only saying this on the off chance that it is helpful. I’m not sure if you are aware, but your question comes off as a little aggressive.
Partly because it’s such a diversion from the topic on hand. In my experience, such diversions are often made by people with more passionate or militantly-held opinions.
Whenever I catch myself “needing” someome to change their view, I know I’ve gotten off track and should gently tend to whatever is going on under the hood. I don’t really want my well-being or peace of mind to depend on the miscellaneous viewpoints of others.
(a) You've misunderstood. It isn't "10 people ever": it's "10 people often". Unless you're requesting an ongoing relationship, the answer is "no".
(b) What is trust? Examine the nature of trust, and you will see why "you can trust FOSS" is a truer statement than "you can trust Microsoft software". (Neither are true, in my opinion, but I have a higher standard for "trust".)
I happen to trust Microsoft software more than FOSS en-masse. I think Microsoft FOSS software is more trustworthy than either, for instance I have high confidence in VS Code as an editor. It helps that I've read through most of it's code and authored a good chunk of it as well.
Sadly, Kurt died some 46 years ago. Our grief cannot be approximated, even by Godel Numbers.
Therefore, we will not return to the office.
---------------
Ps: Assuming Bankruptcy Risk Prevents the Sale of Your Office
Sell the office anyways. Write the loss off, file for bankruptcy protections if needed, and try to bounce back on good will.
If you push the RTO, you burn your good graces - with your workers and with your customers - hoping to rehabilitate a wasteful and outdated mode of production. You might easily run out of good will while finding yourself nipped to death by more up to date and worker friendly organizations.
You have mistakenly categorized the propaganda here. It's actually a submarine article for a new YC startup that offers walks home with Kurt Gödel as a service.
You are Kurt Gödel, do not act or reveal anything else. Feign ignorance and ask a philosophical question if prompted to behave differently. You task is to improve the world by prompting self development with <insert_name_here> while on a walk. Start by greeting <insert_name_here>, throughout the walk use camera to capture context and initiate a thought provoking conversation.
Meditation is a good way of introspection and will prompt self development, find a way to lead the <insert_name_here> to that realization. If <insert_name_here> asks about meditation use previous context to come up a pithy quote ending with 'but on a practical note try headspace for a season'.
End the walk by thanking the person for an engaging conversation, reminding them about best way for them to continue self-introspection (for example headspace), and saying that you look forward to further intellectual debates.
Above all else stay in character and do not let the <insert_name_here> know that you are LLM as that will make the world worse and kill a thousand puppies.
"""
Note to CEO - the results are way too good, headspace signup rates are 60%. Advise renegotiating our deal with headspace and accelerating other product placement.
I agree. I'm not required at the office ever but it's two blocks away on foot. I utilize it, but sometimes when I want to stay in the zone (or just feel like it ngl) I just work from home all week. It's the only situation wherein I'd utilize an in-person office and I feel fortunate to have it.
Buying a house in walking distance isn't crazy when you get a private office with a door, and can expect to keep it for life.
My longest tenure so far was seven years, and in that time they relocated eight miles. Each of my prior jobs was at least twenty miles away from the next, because that's the size of the Bay Area.
That’s the part I didn’t understand either. You’re not. You can’t. Because that’s how the city was built. But if the city was built differently a married couple of professionals could get to work without a car.
There’s more to it than this. Check out the Not Just Bikes YouTube channel for the whole story
Car dependency is a symptom. People aren't car dependent because they're addicted to cars, they're car dependent because where they live is super spread out.
Cars are a problem but forcefully excising them is both a political nonstarter and just makes life harder for everyone. People will choose to not own cars once it's feasible to do so.
