brvsft

Google would not have considered constructing 15k homes had interest rates not been at historic lows. They're not in the construction or real estate business.

And I fail to see what is absurd and obscene, except perhaps the inverse, that low interest rates caused such extreme market distortions that you have a massive company outside of the real estate industry looking into creating 15,000 homes. What is not absurd or obscene about that to you? We don't live in the company-town days any more (not that Google was trying to create a company-town, but they are, again, not in the real estate business).

Leave this particular commentary on Reddit, please.

Okay, I get you. And you're right, if I pitted a 'random' program against this site, the outcome would tend toward 50%.

> it is accurately predicting what you won't press

That is not what it's predicting. You have changed the definition of predict so that an incorrect prediction can be misinterpreted as a correct prediction.

These people aren't talking about sports that require skill. They just mean physical activity anyone can do, like hiking.

The actual meaning of the advice is to find a physical activity you can tolerate in order to find a mate who isn't fat. It is a way to make their completely reasonable and relatable position on fat people seem like something noble. "My mate and I enjoy hiking. It is our shared interest." The reason I know what I'm saying is true is because every time this discussion comes up, people peddle the shared interest bullshit and inevitably bring up 'physical activity.' And sorry for getting a hair up my ass about it, I just find it crazy when people can't just say what they mean: If you are an average man who prefers a woman with a nice body and you dislike or are unsuccessful on dating apps, try going to a group activity that will filter out fat chicks. The end. Nothing pretending this is anything but another attempt at finding a mate.

This is cliched advice that I am slowly beginning to hate. I honestly can't imagine many things more pathetic than a couple going on a jog together. I'm dead serious. If you have a "shared interest" let it be something interesting. Bomb an NRA chapter or an abortion clinic. Yes, I'm a bit of a romantic.

Didn't he kill himself?

Man, that's grim. I just think these people think the moment they go out alone with their thoughts, the first one is something real morbid: Maybe I should kill myself! Slow down buddy, we were just going on a walk alone.

Sometimes parenting the kid means precisely not giving a response to their annoying and noisy behavior.

One of my favorite times to practice not looking at my phone is when I'm waiting for something outside of my home. Waiting for a coffee at the cafe? Stare off into space, not at my phone.

I find the only time this is difficult is if I'm in a crowded area, and I'm anxiously concerned that I don't appear to be staring at a person like some creep. Then I feel one of my only options is to stare at a phone. But I also don't have a lot of entertaining apps on my phone so maybe I'll check the weather eight or nine times.

We're missing the "conflict of interest" because you are abusing the meaning of the term.

What you describe is simply a bias.

Conflict of interest would be if I take money from parties A and B. Party A pays me to give a professional opinion about which nutritional supplement to take, which frontend javascript framework to use, etc. Party B pays me to endorse their special Snake Oil Pills and Ointment or React or something else. I take Party B's money and make those endorsements to Party A without their knowledge and without any actual consideration of what is truly best for Party A. There is a conflict of my interests in Parties A and B.

Your definition is excessively broad and could be used to suggest, e.g., that Nike has a conflict of interest because it is their opinion that you should purchase their shoes.

So again, his solution is to completely rewire the US health care system, which is inactionable when someone's health is at stake.

> I wasn't getting enough sleep and I focused on fixing that.

Gotta ask, what did you do for this?

I'm not against this, but I do believe such a header would give parents a false sense of security in what they can allow their children to do on the internet.

Then again, for those of us who are skeptical that such a program can work, I'm guessing we already aren't or do not plan to allow our kids on the internet without supervision, so it's a bit of a moot point for me.

I'm just annoyed that there is a certain set of incentives that allow for people to ignorantly trust the security and safety of various websites and applications, and then get some sort of reward/handout in the form of a class-action lawsuit against these services when they're finally caught failing to live up to the proposed safety regulations. So every idiot who had an account can line up for $20, and I get zero reward for correctly avoiding the situation by not signing up. These are perverse incentives IMO, and I'll just continue to be annoyed with all solutions that continue to allow this sort of thing to happen.

Under your proposal, there's an inevitable lawsuit where a bunch of people get paid out for allowing their children to get goatse'd because 'kidpxrn.biz' falsely put on the safe-for-kidz header. Sure, they got sued, but a bunch of kids got goatse'd in the process, and their parents got $20. Cool future, I guess.

Most likely because these were captions on the cops' bodycam footage, so viewers who watched it probably did not get any impression that he was claiming to be literally raped.

> The only counts Locher has not dismissed are defamation and invasion of privacy against the officers related to Galanakis' claim that Winters had been convicted of domestic abuse. “Nathan Winter of the Newton Police Department convicted of domestic abuse after beating up his ex girlfriend,” Galanakis wrote in one caption. A subsequent caption stated that Winters had “beat the shit out of” his girlfriend. Though Winters had a protective order filed against him, the counterclaim states that he has not been charged or convicted of domestic abuse. Locher agreed that on this basis claims of defamation and false-light invasion of privacy for both Winter and Wing (because of the implication that Wing did nothing to discipline Winters) can proceed.

Most important part of the article as far as I can tell. Everything else was dismissed.

These two cops are quite disgusting, especially Winters. I remember seeing this video when it originally went viral, and the 19-year-old seems calm and coherent. The only reason I think you could mistake him for drinking is his normal speech pattern has a kind of 'slur' to it. Nothing he did seemed wrong, just what they initially pulled him over for re: his headlights, which he had a consistent explanation for. They're just power hungry cops who wanted to fuck with someone.

People will believe whatever nonsense they want to believe contrary to any evidence. It's just like the 40 beheaded babies story from a week ago, but from the other side. Both sides get to believe false narratives, so it's all quite fair I guess.

Most of his wealth is AMZN stock which never existed before Jeff Bezos made Amazon. What exactly do you think he is hoarding? Wealth is not zero-sum.

I'll try to answer some of your questions, but I'm not an accountant.

1. You're trying to understand the money coming in and going out of a business. The organization of this information can make certain events more apparent, like whether you're actually making or losing money (this is not necessarily obvious!) how much 'runway' a company has, roughly how valuable it is (a bit nebulous because a lot more goes into it, but "doing accounting" is the starting point), whether inventory is being stolen more than might be normal, etc.

2. No idea about this guide or the coloring. TBH a spreadsheet conveys the data better than a graph. Double entry bookkeeping was a revolutionary idea though. I think it's fairly easy to forget the full effect of a transaction. I buy a $500 chair for my business, this isn't just $500 less in cash, it's $500 more in some 'furniture' asset. This accounting for every minute detail of what your business owns or owes across even dozens of transactions becomes difficult to track.

1. Look up cash vs. accrual accounting. I think I learned most of this on Khan Academy the first time, but there must be dozens of YouTube videos on it. Basically w/ accounting over time you start adding deferred accounts of different sorts like payables and receivables.

2. No idea. I think when you start getting into these topics there is either just some software solution that follows some standard or allows you to make a choice about how to use the exchange rate, or there is some specific standard set by FASB saying how to do it. But I don't know.

As a simple example of something else, with inventory, businesses can value it a few different ways including FIFO and LIFO (where they value inventory based on the price they paid least or most recently) among others. These choices are often just a preference for the business, or perhaps common for a business' industry. I suspect there might be similar methods of valuation for accounts denominated in different currency, where you could take the amount by exchange rate either on the first or last of the month or by its average rate over the month.

If it is being downvoted, it's at least partly because it's an unrealistic standard that is about as serious as the take that "socialists" shouldn't be allowed to use smartphones or other products of "capitalism."

I like that this thread is going to become a bunch of invective where people who aren't libertarians are going to claim libertarian hypocrisy on subjects like (a) outing someone as homosexual and (b) suing a media outlet for what was effectively revenge porn.

Is it your honest opinion that all libertarians are supposed to be ethically okay with outing someone's sexuality or posting revenge porn tapes? If so, why?

Wait, why didn't you use these examples:

> You don't get to decide what to put into your body and smoke weed. You don't get to make a choice about your pregnancy and have an abortion. You don't get to not be a chattel slave in 1840.

Well, they also support property rights, not just freedom.

"Selling" your ADU would either require dividing up the parcel (which I am guessing is nontrivial in most places) or somehow itemizing improvements on the parcel so that the ADU owner can pay taxes for their unit separately from the main home on the property.

No reason to figure out a solution to any of this when housing isn't much of a problem there.

ADUs seem like a bandaid solution for lack of housing supply in desirable areas. Not that I think they shouldn't be legal, but we're talking about paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for what amounts to a shed in someone else's backyard just because you want to live in Seattle, SF, etc.

It's so bizarre, and if this solution is taken to its logical end, you literally have cities full of single-family homes with a class of SFH owners, and their second-class ADU "owners" who live in the fancy shed behind their home. I'm curious how the inevitable legal disputes between these two classes of owners will be treated in the coming years.

I am also confused by this statement. The most generous interpretation I have is that this number is quite high, and therefore, the bar to being more 'affordable' than this is 'low' in that selling, say, a $500,000 ADU appears quite affordable in comparison. I don't know though, it obviously all seems quite absurd. The other interpretation might be that SFH are far more than this, but one would think you would include the average price of SFH when making such a point.

It's not unheard of in the US. The missing person case of Jennifer Kesse in Orlando, FL comes to mind. Her parents even had to file a lawsuit against the police because they refused to cooperate with private investigators after failing to make progress on the case.

A lot of people are under the impression that these stores can just eat the cost with insurance, which is, of course, an absurd notion because then the insurance company is losing too much money and will raise the premiums. Then Walmart, etc. can't afford the insurance unless they close their most problematic locations.

People engage in a lot of magical thinking to justify theft since it seems like a harmless act. Thieves are just trying to feed their families! Insurance will cover it! Etc.! It's really unfortunate, they're going to learn the hard way as not only Walmart but other retail stores in their areas flee.

Seems inevitable when it replaced all the other retail stores with merchandise you can steal. Where else would I go to steal something in a small town with a Walmart?

I'll take your strawman and raise you one. This sort of thing is exactly why I roll my eyes when somebody suggests that it's a lost cause so you need to give your one-year-old a smartphone.

Just don't give your kid a phone. If he views content he's not supposed to at school or a friend's house, that's not the worst thing in the world. I can't possibly control every single thing my daughter does because she is her own person. But I can mostly control what she does in our home, and no smartphone is a simple solution that prevents all of these other content-blocking problems. Even if she figures out a temporary way to get around it, that's not the end of the world to me. The larger issue to me is the constant oppressive force destroying a child's brain by having TikTok in her pocket at all times.

Number two is quite amusing because I'm seeing headlines like (exaggerated) Gavin Newsom Vetoes California Baby Sacrifice Act of 2023.