bishoprook2

> Building in danger zones where the home will need to be replaced in 10-20 years is an awful investment on a 30 year mortgage.

With a cheap enough house, it's just the thing. Spend all of your money on land.

Maybe the future is in RVs. If they let me get away with it, I can see scraping a parking pad in Big Sur and sticking a motorhome on it. Relatively earthquake-proof. Fire? Simply drive away. Vacations to the desert can be slept in your own bed. Want to live the classic life? Buy a GMC Motorhome.

Maybe those behemoths make sense. Live the Jim Rockford lifestyle.

>The problem that the article doesn't address

Another. Industries that are oriented towards tradeshow or holiday launches. It ain't like they're going to move NAB or Christmas just for you. Inevitable feature pruning occurs.

Having said that, I wonder how many of the great fortunes have been built on horrid, half-finished websites and associated software that were all about being first out of the gate and heavy marketing.

An interesting subcase is software that is difficult or impossible to update vs. immovable deadlines. I guess in a world that consists entirely of one silly internet surveillance marketing company after another is doesn't really matter much anymore.

That's a great question. I keep looking for Linux tablets but not much joy so far. The Pinetab is unavailable and pretty slow.

If I had to guess, I'd hunt around for a Windows tablet that someone had good luck running Linux on. Maybe a Surface Pro.

Plate tectonics will cure all ills.

>The fact that our forestry practices, by artificially arresting a natural part of forest life-cycles, create powderkegs of old, unhealthy, and highly flammable forests is not news.

Seriously, you should check out just how much of California used to burn in prehistory. I ran into a few papers on Sci-Hub about it. It's pretty crazy.

It looks like a large part of California would be uninhabitable given natural practices.

> How does that data support the case that climate change is the main culprit?

Most likely because people don't know what they're talking about. There are a lot of potential causes, probably some more that never come up, but an awful lot of absolutely certain theories.

I was being facetious.

The previous poster was comparing building California homes near trees to the folks who build on flood plains.

A natural expansion of that tells you that you can't build in Santa Rosa (Tubbs Fire), Oakland hills (more fires), the Bay Area (earthquakes, someday the Hayward Fault will let loose), or really much of anywhere near the coast (rising sea levels, California Coastal Commission has decided that protecting your property with water barriers is no bueno).

You know, it's worth considering that 'California' isn't some big monolithic landscape.

The dangerous fires mostly seem to erupt from hard-to-access river canyons. Do you just let those burn? Light 'em up on purpose?

As a side note, these areas are filled with highly flammable buildings. 100 year old wood construction, shared attics in the small towns, nowhere near modern code.

" Forests take thousands upon thousands of years to mature."

I can't be too many thousands of years. It doesn't take too many thousands to completely change the nature of forests (spruce to pine for example).

>I think building lots of houses in forests, is a similar problem as when people build lots of houses in flood plains.

So is the Bay Area a good place to build houses? Santa Rosa, CA?