hytdstd

Larger cars are safer-- to the people inside them[0]. And the cost of an SUV is nothing compared to medical bills and chronic pain. Of course, they only remain safer as long as they're larger than other vehicles on the road, so it's just a never-ending arms race.

[0]: https://www.iihs.org/topics/vehicle-size-and-weight.

It sounds like you've minimized one-time furniture costs by increasing your recurring fuel costs.

>Any statistician worth their salt can see the problem with an operational definition of height that starts with "bottom of their feet".

I don't get it, what's the problem with that?

Are you saying that parking spaces do not produce value? Just from the fact that people voluntarily pay for it, would suggest that this is not the case. Personally, I think it's good for parking to be handled by the free market and not the government.

Can you be specific about what exactly you find wrong or incorrect about Shoup's claims?

Suddenly, the entire study of statistics and demography is unsound to you after I ask for clarification on your issues with a paper's conclusions.

I'm trying to understand the problem with defining rural and urban areas at a county level. Aren't they looking at per capita fatality rates? Obviously urban centers massively out populate rural ones. I don't really see how rural land around an urban center is poisoning the results here. Ultimately, the authors found that gun violence per capita isn't significantly greater in urban counties than in rural ones.

Can you elaborate on how this disqualifies the study findings? I also read it, they say:

"To describe the urban-rural distribution of firearm mortality, we used the county-level metropolitan/nonmetropolitan classification from the United States Department of Agriculture’s 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, which defines nonmetropolitan (rural) counties as having communities of fewer than 50,000 people with less than 25% of the workforce commuting to a metropolitan(urban)county".

Does that work?

In this thread? I have mentioned nothing of weapons. I really don't know how to tell you that threads and conversations quickly change topic. I'm genuinely curious what statement on gun violence my question was supposed to be making.

Is this still true? This article (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.calhealthreport.org/2018/04...) suggests that it's no longer the case in California.

What argument? I was literally just asking a question. If you thought I was making some statement about gun violence, I suggest that you calm down and stop reading too much into random comments on the internet.

Are you suggesting that racism is a predominantly urban phenomenon?

I'm glad your experiences have been good. But that doesn't make it true for the country as a whole. Here's a quote by Former speaker of the house Newt Gingrich:

"It's more dangerous to be black in America[...] It's both more dangerous because of crime, which is the Chicago story. But it is more dangerous in that you're substantially more likely to end up in a situation where police don't respect you where you could easily get killed. I think sometimes for whites it's difficult to appreciate how real that is."

That's fantastic. Does this sense of community continue to apply when a black family moves in?

> A million or so crimes, murders included, are deterred/stopped every year - most without firing a shot.

The data don't really suggest that this is the case. Compared to other western countries, America has the same rate of crime. The difference is, of course, that criminal activity is more likely to involve firearms and thus death.

>Unless it's a NAMBLA flag, I am not going to let a bumper sticker or slogan override my personal experience of a person. Most people are like this.

If you have lots of personal experiences with a person, that's great. But many people don't have real relationships with their neighbors. Bumper stickers and slogans absolutely will impact such relations, they make first impressions. I certainly wouldn't trust almost-strangers with tons of flat-earth stuff to tutor my kids, would you?

* less robust high speed tracking (2d barcode features often get destroyed by motion blur from consumer grade cameras)

* slower tracking in general (specialty hardware such as depth cameras often are higher spec: intel realsense can do 90fps, some mocap systems can do 1000hz)

* worse accuracy and precision in general (though it's related to the tag size, bigger tags are more precise/accurate)

>If you continue to flood a country with people who are willing to work for lower wages, supply and demand for employment and wages will continue to work as intended.

Discussing the labor market in this way is overly reductionist and leads to incorrect conclusions. I could even find an article by the cato institute(yes) that concludes:

>Restricting immigration will not have a substantial positive impact on native wages, at least in real terms.

via https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2017/does-immigration...

Maybe simplest is best: Google, the company with pockets deep enough to develop and market Glass, couldn't see the business proposition in Ara.

Yes, you're absolutely right. So what do you think is stopping every household from buying a 3d printer/mill/whatever?

This is impossible to avoid if you want to raise money. Investors and board members insist on this stuff.

This article is extremely long-winded. Do you mind providing a summary of what exactly appeals to you?

Also: Is "C. Guy Yarvin" Curtis Yarvin?

Yes, and it's quite disturbing. I just went on a road trip with a friend, and despite passing a few bicyclists, the car (with radar sensors) did not detect any of them.

I'm not sure that RPi foundation's skill is just in shmoozing Broadcom-- they just released their $4 Pico board, which seems to be their own design.

> For today's kids grades are only the starting point. For instance, social media presence is now very important.

Care to elaborate on this?

Corruption? by "influencing Pinterest management in their arbitrary decisions", do you perhaps just mean a meeting between a business and a customer?

I earnestly believe that an ADU (or anything, such as a car) on market provides an option. That is what I was trying to say.

My original question was this: how does adding an ADU to the market hurt the lower class?

These are numbers from 5 years ago. I didn't increase them to be conservative. 400-500 today wouldn't surprise me.

If the ADU is sub-standard, then the lower class can choose to not live there.

I didn't ask about the density statement, I understand the argument the GP made.

>providing sub-standard housing to the lower class.

Can you elaborate on the problem with this? I don't see how adding an ADU to the market hurts the lower class.