If the safe speed of the road is 25mph, and the design speed of the road is above 25mph, you will not have safety no matter what the speed limit is. Vision Zero strategies take these factors into account to ensure safety.
922 karma · joined January 5, 2021
If the design speed of a road does not match the speed limit of the road, people will drive the design speed, cops will learn to sit there all hours of the day waiting for people to mess up, and get ticketed. Instead of just putting up the speed limit sign, city planners should design for the road to be safe without need for the speed limits to be in place. This can mean things like reducing the width of a lane, could mean speed bumps, to purposeful non-straight sections.
Confirmation bias is very tricky here. A quick look at top essentially single games of all times shows that a full 50% or so of them were created by drop outs, a number way outside of what we would expect. But how many dropped out and failed?
All of these guys clearly had the capability to create greatness within them their entire life, but were stuck in an environment that did not fit their talents or did not otherwise give them the support that would allow them to thrive, like Tao got.
And yet, all of the people whom were failed by the system will never be heard of, and we have no idea the numbers of these people either. I expect that there are way more of them than unsuccessful dropouts.
Indie Gaming slant on these following examples, and I suspect that this sector is above average for this type of thing, but I suspect if I looked I could find many dropouts in other fields. On the other hand, Carmack dropped out of college, Jonathan Blow dropped out of college. Markus Persson dropped out of high school. Eric Barone never found a job despite graduating from college. All of these people are out-of-this-world fucking good, but were not at the time that they dropped out, which means according to your guide should not have gone on to create what they did.
> "Census Bureau surveys do not collect data on the population experiencing homelessness and living on the streets"
> https://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2024/demo/seh...
> Housing Unit. A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.
> Homeownership Rates. The proportion of households that are owners is termed the homeownership rate. It is computed by dividing the number of households that are owners by the total number of occupied households.
> https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf
When we get to the bottom of this we should edit the Wikipedia article if I am wrong.
> The name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. This latter percentage will be significantly lower than the homeownership rate. Many households that are owner-occupied contain adult relatives (often young adults, descendants of the owner) who do not own their own home. Single building multi-bedroom rental units can contain more than one adult, all of whom do not own a home.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St...
How does someone owning (and living in) multiple properties effect the homeownership rate? They count multiple times!
How does someone renting out a bedroom effect the homeownership rate? Their tenant doesn't count! This includes adult children.
You can not use this metric in the way that you just assumed you could.
It should be trivial to write up a puzzle game such that, much like those color blind tests where you need to find numbers, will very quickly eliminate people who think in different ways while being a piece of cake for others. And yet I don't think I've ever encountered one.
Are there no capabilities that can not be overcome? Would that puzzle game just be terrible entertainment? Why doesn't it exist?
Now how correct are you?
The investing industry is positive sum - but you must hold for the long-run, or only make decisions if new information is discovered to be an investor. Vanguard and other passive firms are a part of the investing industry.
As the GP says, the trading industry is zero-sum.
The architecture that economists and climate scientists both agree will move the needle on this is a revenue neutral carbon tax. A revenue neutral carbon tax taxes carbon, and then returns 100% of that tax money back to people equally. Anyone who uses less than the average amount of carbon - which is a majority of the population - since the top users use so much, get paid in this scheme.
People might not want to pay, but they don't have to. Excessive users, the non-majority, pay. People, on average, don't pay - they get paid.
The architecture already exists, it's already law in certain countries, and anyone ignoring this fundamental reality is not being serious.
I regularly work with people on my team who need to go into an office, but it's a different office than mine. RTO does not solve this issue.
> why would any third spaces want to be setting up in a dead business district if no one goes there anymore?
SoHo, Manhattan in the 1970's matches this description. That environment is a perfect breeding ground for communities to flourish.
> so it's unlikely the office is getting sold
Sure. Some will, some won't. Still means less demand and cheaper prices. Still means some workplaces will use a shared model with other companies.
As an introvert who does understand those points you make, society should pick up the slack with third spaces. What's holding those third spaces back? Lack of cheap access to space. Once the offices are sold they will become third spaces, and we will get the best of both worlds.
I don't really see the point in anything long range for autonomous vehicles in the near-term. We should optimize the use-case of them driving people and goods to and from train stations. For this use-case it should be entirely fine if the max speed they can achieve is 20mph. The stopping times and force that can be achieved at those speeds should bring down the danger by quite a bit.
Whenever you use water it is tracked and you pay the market price. All of that is then collected and put into a pot. It is then given back equally to everyone.
Everyone is thus incentivized to use less and those that use less than the average amount of water - a huge majority of people since the heaviest users use so much - will receive more money than they spent.
> A businessman could not build it for a profit, since he cannot claim a price from each user. This certainly is the kind of activity that governments would naturally undertake. Even if the operators were able—say, by radar reconnaissance—to claim a toll from every nearby user, that fact would not necessarily make it socially optimal for this service to be provided like a private good at a market-determined individual price. Why not? Because it costs society zero extra cost to let one extra ship use the service; hence any ships discouraged from those waters by the requirement to pay a positive price will represent a social economic loss—even if the price charged to all is no more than enough to pay the long-run expenses of the lighthouse.
> https://truthonthemarket.com/2021/06/22/the-virtues-and-pitf...
If one is to pay any amount of money more than the marginal cost, and decides not to that is an example of dead-weight loss.
I think the major issue here is that those that wish to abolish copyright and patents aren't then actively promoting another idea, as you say. Let's look at spaces where it is currently illegal to copyright or patent something, say, Maths formulas. Do we have no one working on new maths? No. We have plenty of Mathematicians. They either work for companies creating trade secrets, or they work for Universities releasing their work in journals for all to use.
So let's re-imagine a system where copyrights and patents are abolished. As Samuelson argues, as this is non-excludable and has zero marginal costs, it is a perfect fit for the government to take charge. Given that the current system produces dead-weight loss bringing down the production of the entire country, if we remove this dead-weight loss than the country will have much higher productivity. That higher productivity will drive higher taxes, and those higher taxes will allow the government to expand tenure track positions in public universities. Those tenure track positions can then go on and create new works and patents. The demand that those works create will then bring students to study and allow the works to proliferate.
Would you prefer a system where copyrights and patents were abolished but there were 100x more tenure track positions? Where 10% of the population held such a role?
This form of transportation needs it's own infrastructure. We need wider dedicated paths for this much higher efficient form of transportation that can carry many more people than car lanes can. Like in the Netherlands the Unites States needs to build an entirely separate bike path network so that these bikes can stop being ping-ponged between getting killed on the roads and slightly annoying pedestrians.
Every single person that converts from driving a car to riding an e-bike is one less person creating traffic. If there's anything cars hate more than pedestrians, hate more than bikes, it's other drivers. This will be a huge win for drivers.
Here's backup from wikipedia, or are they also not making sense?
> The name "homeownership rate" can be misleading. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is the percentage of homes that are occupied by the owner. It is not the percentage of adults that own their own home. This latter percentage will be significantly lower than the homeownership rate. Many households that are owner-occupied contain adult relatives (often young adults, descendants of the owner) who do not own their own home. Single building multi-bedroom rental units can contain more than one adult, all of whom do not own a home.
> the home ownership rate is created through the Housing Vacancy Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is created by dividing the owner occupied units by the total number of occupied units.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_St...
For example, if you homeless you do not count. If you live with your parents even though you would prefer to rent if you could afford it, that is a home-owned household. If the owner lives in their home and they rent out a room, that's a home. If you used to rent with 4 people and now live with 8, that's a single rental. If you own and live in multiple homes, you count multiple times.
Without more analysis, you can not use this rate to come to any conclusions.
Under a land value tax this flips, and the majority vote would go to up-zoning.
The city forecasts[0] that the average Detroit homeowner will get a 17% permanent property tax cut in 2025. 97% of all Detroit homeowners will get a tax cut.
[0]: https://detroitmi.gov/departments/office-chief-financial-off...
Tenants always pay for the land value. If a new train station opens up and the costs of an apartment have not changed, you better believe the landlord will raise prices given the raised demand from the new value associated from the train station. The monthly payment that a tenant pays has nothing to do with costs.
The effect whereby taxes are passed on happen because when you tax something you get less of it, and with less of it it moves along the supply and demand curve and so prices rise. Since the supply of land is fixed, this does not happen with land taxes.
The question then becomes do you pay the value to the landlord, or do you pay it to the community?