lmm

> you will not get rid of rent control by getting mad about it. Renters literally do not care; they need housing security first and foremost. They will not vote for their own evictions just for the promise of lower rent many years in the future.

Maybe stories of massive, immediate increase in housing supply in places that scrapped rent control will change their minds. Maybe appeals to fairness will work. It's certainly got no worse chance of working out than trying to build houses in San Francisco, which smart, motivated people have been trying very hard to do for decades to no avail.

> Maybe more effort should be put into thinking of ways to incentivize housing construction

A properly functioning housing market is a way to incentivise housing construction.

> Also, as a rent-controlled renter, I'd love more housing to be built near me. I don't think I've ever met any renters who feel otherwise. Most of the actual NIMBYs seem to be owners, not renters. As for how would they know that more housing is needed? Um, by reading the news and talking to people? It's a constant topic of conversation in SF.

Everyone talks a good game about supporting more homebuilding, yet somehow SF never builds any homes.

> not getting to live on my street is not "just as horrible" as getting kicked to the curb with pets and/or dependents and losing your entire lifestyle and community without warning or recourse.

Come off it, no-one's talking about kicking people out on the curb instantly. I'm all for processes and reasonable notice periods. But ultimately if you're not willing to pay what it costs to live where you do, yeah you should be pushed out for someone who will, rather than the rest of us subsidising you even as we're forced to cram into shared rooms miles away from our jobs.

> This is orthogonal to having robust tenant protections.

How can it be? How will residents know or care that their city doesn't have enough market-rate housing, that market-rate homes are too expensive, when they're not exposed to that market-rate price? Ever if they support building more housing in theory, they're absolutely going to object to it anywhere near them. It's not a coincidence that cities with rent control consistently build fuck all, that the few cities that have managed to actually build some homes over the past few years are in places like Texas.

Japan has done this for concert tickets for years. It works great.

> The alternative is that half my street gets ousted whenever a tech boom happens. What a horrible way to live.

Or maybe if the pain was more evenly distributed you'd vote to legalise more housing. Not being able to live in a street like yours is just as horrible for those of us who didn't luck into arriving there earlier, we're just out of sight, out of mind.

> replacing sensing and processing with reading. The death of aptitude, prowess, and the human experience.

Replacing something all animals do with something uniquely human, perhaps the most important thing that sets us apart, is the death of the human experience?

> I’ve already conceded in sibling comments that saying “romaji” to mean “Hepburn romaji” specifically is technically imprecise. Note I still do explicitly mention other romanization systems, want to stay consistent within the article, and don’t want to overload the reader with terminology. My motivation here is that realistically that’s the romaji you’re going to be exposed to the most as a learner.

It's not just a technicality. "i could also have used a different romanization that renders し as "si", つ as "tu", and ち as "ti" for this article. i decided to not because everyone else uses romaji" is not just sloppy but outright misleading, as though "si" and "tu" were somehow not romaji.

Generally before you presume to teach (a term you've used repeatedly about this post) beginners you should be at least B2 level in the target language.

You're saying "romaji" when you mean "romanisation". Yes in Japanese it's called ヘボン式ローマ字, but when people use "romaji" as a loanword in English it's generally understood to mean the written characters, the result of romanisation, not the process of romanisation (and certainly not "Hepburn romanisation specifically as distinct from other romanisation systems", but you've already non-apologised for that).

> New upstairs neighbors are literally paying $2000/m more than we are for the same floor plan.

> None of this seems egregious to me.

Enough said. I wonder if it would feel egregious if you were the one paying $2000/m more.

> "Romaji" does not (in English) mean "romanisation"

> This method of writing is sometimes referred to in Japanese as rōmaji

See how there's not actually a contradiction there?

> there are many "free protections" that are taken for granted at our stage of civilizational development. Should fire departments be privatized? Police? I'd argue that housing security is even more important than those. We bear the costs together so that our lives are collectively better.

But we don't. Everyone who works in the city is paying the costs, while the lucky few who moved in decades ago are the only ones who get the benefit. If everyone got to pay the same level of rent then I'd maybe support it, but there's nothing "collective" about the people who got here quicker protecting themselves while pulling the ladder up behind them.

> Three, your entire framing is kind of bananas. Rent control is neither insurance nor expensive, but a cap on landlord profits. If anything, it's unbounded profiteering of basic necessities that's actually "expensive."

It's got nothing to do with profit; if there are x homes and y>x people who want to live in them, either you give them to the x highest bidders, or you unfairly screw some people over. Rent control is one form of option B (there are others).

> One wonders why the people who don't want to have to leave a city like San Fransisco just cause some other people have more money than them and want to raise their rents out of their reach are the ones who should move to Texas. Why shouldn't the would-be newcomers just be the ones go to all those cookie-cutter new developments?

Because my money should be just as good as yours? Why should you get a huge discount just because of where you were lucky to be born? I'm not asking for a better deal than you, just fair competition between equals.

> And the Texas burbs happily would've built a shit-ton of houses and apartments for the startup workers, because of the aforementioned giant quantities of near-empty land.

For first 100, sure. Then they'd complain about the newcomers changing the character of the place and ban new buildings. The same thing happens everywhere, you can't route around it by starting your own new city because as soon as you've built any kind of community you have the same NIMBY problems as every other city.

I live in one of the most populous metropolitan areas on the planet because it's the best place to live in the world. Increasing density and population is working great so far; maybe it won't scale all the way to 8 billion, but as and when there's a problem we'll deal with it.

Ah, you mean those sounds don't exist in (standard) Japanese? I got confused by you talking about "the English equivalent".

> At least for now, DeepSeek has no ties to the defense sector.

Like every company based in China they are under the control of the Chinese state, which is an armed entity known to use violence.

This isn't about Trump. No 4th amendment rights at the border has been an issue for at least 20 years, but US citizens don't care because it doesn't affect citizens.

A 30 second search found me https://www.fire.org/news/he-spent-37-days-jail-facebook-pos... . You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride. (And you're pretty thoroughly proving my point about US citizens not caring about anyone else)

> And, since the English equivalent of those sounds doesn't exist, there's no confusion the way there would be between "she" and "see" in english.

Erm, wtf? The English "si" sound does exist and sounds different from し. There is a reason people don't want to write Sinzyuku, and while I think they're making the wrong tradeoff, it is a tradeoff and should be acknowledged as such.

Theorycrafting efficient ways of learning Japanese while being barely conversational yourself is a completely different hobby from actually learning Japanese (or actually studying the teaching of Japanese), and sadly in online spaces the former often swamps out discussion of the latter.

> My main mistake seems to be meaning “[Hepburn] romaji” by writing “romaji”. I was obviously aware of other systems because that is what the sentence says but I thought it’s acceptable to refer to Hepburn as just “romaji” as a sort of the default one.

"Romaji" does not (in English) mean "romanisation", as most people who've studied Japanese to at least beginner level know.

> With all the issues in the US and generally wrong direction, I can’t remember them ever arresting people for mean tweets in the way that Germany and the UK have.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The constitution prevents citizens from being convicted, but that doesn't stop arrests or being turned away at the border (even for permanent residents who've lived in the US for decades), and US citizens don't seem to care, so it's cold comfort for many of us.

> I feel like you’re going out of your way to misinterpret the article.

Nope. You correct yourself after, sure, but what I wrote is how it came across at the time when reading.

> Where is the factual mistake here? “si” is invalid romaji, my article uses romaji

No, that's not what "romaji" means. If you mean Hepburn, say Hepburn. And if you don't know the difference, that's a sign to learn more before presuming to teach others.

> I don’t know what you mean by “so much effort”.

This is a pretty long blog post covering really not very much.

> The te/ta-form is genuinely a separate system linguistically with its own heritage. So it makes sense to look at it separately. I don’t consider it more “interesting” and I’d argue getting the details right with other forms is much more useful coverage-wise.

It's not just te/ta, you don't mention anything other than the basic polite/casual, positive/negative, and desiderative. At the very end you point to conditional and causative but say you haven't studied them, and no mention at all of passive, imperative, causative passive, or volitional.

> I agree you need to put time to practice and all that. But if there’s a genuinely simple system underneath, I always prefer to see it.

And how's that working out for you?

> There’s literally thousands of resources that teach it your preferred way, so I don’t understand the impulse to complain about someone teaching it differently for a change.

I find it very presumptive to propose to "teach" what you haven't really learnt. How many people have successfully become remotely close to fluent following this approach? It's 0, right? What makes you think you're "teaching" rather than leading people astray?

> There are lots of people in the comments somehow offended by the author's genuine excitement over the method that worked well enough for them that they wanted to share it.

Did it work for them though? They apparently never got past the basics. So IMO it's more likely the opposite; they've distracted themselves from getting on with learning.

If it's taking you this much effort to do the trivial conjugations (seriously, the whole page barely mentions the interesting ones 80% of the way down, and falls back on "yeah, you just have to memorize the patterns" for た/て forms), yeah, just memorise them. Language learning and exercise are the two things where I've found the programmer's instinct to "work smarter, not harder" works against you; you actually just have to put the time and effort in.

The author is using an anglicised romaji system and evidently thinking in English, so they think writing 話します as "hanasimasu" is "wrong".

> Very similar with patterns. I've often read people protesting that juniors overuse design patterns, yet I've seldom seen a junior (mis)use anything more complex than a singleton, and when they use any pattern, it's usually forced upon them by an opinionated Java framework.

I've seen it occasionally. There was one junior whose code I saw littered with DTO that're an exact copy of the business object and DAOs where every method is just a wrapper for a Hibernate method. But yeah it's rare.

> is it necessary for the performance boost and de-fluffing the objects?

Yes. The one part of the JVM GC that can't run concurrently is heap compaction; objects that can be moved by copying and then deleting would be a huge help for that. And it would be awkward to say the object has an identity but can't be wait/notify'd, at which point you need somewhere for the monitor to go.

> Does this happen in actuality? One would assume the allocator tries to put stuff sequentially on the heap?

Yes. Of course it tries, but semantically the pointers are just pointers and the prefetcher can guess but the system still has to chase them.

> They have added proper algebraic data types to the language

No they haven't. E.g. they added a class that superficially looks like Option but subtly breaks the rules that Option is meant to follow, ensuring that no-one can ever manage to migrate existing codebases away from using `null`.