The programming talent myth [LWN.net]

The programming talent myth

Posted Apr 30, 2015 2:34 UTC (Thu) by rodgerd (guest, #58896)
In reply to: The programming talent myth by ncm
Parent article: The programming talent myth

> Far more important, and limiting, is the luxury of spare time.

I commute several days a week by running. It saves a shit-tonne of money, and substitutes sitting on a bus or in traffic for something a great deal healthier. So no, it's not really a luxury-of-spare-time thing.

to post comments

The programming talent myth

Posted May 1, 2015 11:23 UTC (Fri) by l0b0 (guest, #80670) [Link] (2 responses)

In that case it's the luxury of having a shower at work, which I've only ever seen at the EvilRichCorp I worked for a while.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 2, 2015 9:24 UTC (Sat) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

Or, you could just run home.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 2, 2015 20:14 UTC (Sat) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]

Plenty of blue-collar jobs have showers, from personal experience.

You're really, really reaching for why it's all too hard.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 2, 2015 12:16 UTC (Sat) by deepfire (guest, #26138) [Link] (7 responses)

It probably also means you aren't afraid of getting cancer through running along traffic-heavy highways.

It so happens that for some of us the distance is non-trivial.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 2, 2015 15:42 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

It probably also means you aren't afraid of getting cancer through running along traffic-heavy highways.

Who knows? Even if the shortest car route is a motorway, a reasonable running route might go along a forest track.

It so happens that for some of us the distance is non-trivial.

That's a more reasonable objection. I work from home most of the time but from here to the office would be a 30-km run, one way, including crossing a major river. Doing it by bike might be a more reasonable proposition.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 2, 2015 16:22 UTC (Sat) by Sesse (subscriber, #53779) [Link]

Exercise is a net positive even if there's pollution. (Source: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408698/)

Obviously it's better to run in non-polluted areas, but you shouldn't be afraid of exercising just because your best alternative is in a city.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 2, 2015 16:36 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (3 responses)

> also means you aren't afraid of getting cancer through running along traffic-heavy highways

Isn't driving along traffic-heavy highways just as bad?

The programming talent myth

Posted May 3, 2015 23:10 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link] (2 responses)

Isn't driving along traffic-heavy highways just as bad?

You breathe considerably less air during a 5K drive than during a 5K run.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 4, 2015 10:01 UTC (Mon) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (1 responses)

If you're sitting in your car, stuck tail-pipe to air intakes in jams, you may be exposed to much more pollution than the runner taking the trails, footpaths and pavement though. Or the cyclist, who sits much higher than car occupants.

For peak time commuting, both the runner and the cyclist may well spend much less time in the the congested jams than 4+ wheel vehicle occupants.

The programming talent myth

Posted May 9, 2015 0:42 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

I remember a very recent story that said 90% of pollution suffered by car occupants occurred in the 2-3% of time they spent stuck at traffic lights.

So a cyclist or runner will avoid most of it.

Cheers,
Wol

The programming talent myth

Posted May 2, 2015 20:16 UTC (Sat) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]

> It probably also means you aren't afraid of getting cancer through running along traffic-heavy highways.

I can't help you if you're a Daily Mail reader who's afraid everything will give you cancer.