mint2

A. Most of the forests are national forests not state land. The 10 o’clock rule was a nationwide wildfire policy.

B. Every western state is facing the problems with increased wildfire.

Oh but let’s bash California because its in vogue.

after at least a year of regular posts on real page, where all the articles I’ve seen here specifically cite how real page enforces their pricing, why are there always posts that lead off with an entirely incorrect understanding of what real page does?

Anytime a real page article is posted, a bunch of people come out expressing confusion and defend real page, asking why it’s illegal to look up competitor pricing…

Then they express surprise when told that real page does more than that - that it actually sets the prices and makes the price onerous to change and applies penalties if landlords still does change the price.

But this info is always stated in the articles, so what how or where are the posters getting their initial incorrect info on real page? It seems they must be getting bad info somewhere because it doesn’t seem plausible to guess at how real page works without even reading anything.

And all of the incorrect understandings are always generous to real page.. is real page putting out a lot of fud somewhere that’s getting to people who then come here after being misled?

Exactly, a Northern European adapting to sun exposure doesn’t mean getting a tan, it would mean evolutionary pressure to adapt to, say, sunnier California via natural selection over a few thousand years where less sun fit portions die off earlier, while the surviving group slowly gets darker over many many generations or better at repairing damage.

If you’re fair skinned but find yourself outside the low UV region that your skin is adapted to, you are welcome to begin the new adaptation by avoiding sun protection and going outside without regard to the UV index.

I, however, will not join that genetic adaptation.

As I posted in the dupe of this -

this article is specifically about regions in “low” UV latitudes, with the actual subject being from the UK. Accounting for UV intensity of your home country is crucial.

Don’t just go out and frolic without precautions just because a study from the UK found sun exposure was good. Their sunlight isn’t built the same.

Mid day UV index in SF is 9 as I type. Compare what the paper says about the UK UV index:

“ The UV index [in the uk], which measures the erythemal intensity of sunlight, rarely exceeds 6 (where 3–5 is classified as moderate and 6–7 high)”

Make good decisions people! I got some sun when the UV was 2 early in the early morning. Now it’s 9 at midday. All sun is not equal.

Glad this was pointed out - this article is specifically about regions in “low” UV latitudes, with the actual subject being from the UK.

Accounting for UV intensity of your home country is crucial. Don’t just go out and frolic without precautions just because a study from the UK found sun exposure was good. Their sun isn’t built the same.

Mid day UV index in SF is 9 as I type. Compare what the paper says about the UK UV index:

“ The UV index [in the uk], which measures the erythemal intensity of sunlight, rarely exceeds 6 (where 3–5 is classified as moderate and 6–7 high)”

Make good decisions people! I got some sun when the UV was 2 early in the early morning. Now it’s 9 at midday. All sun is not equal.

I think you missed the forest for the trees. Because Low density car oriented building is what’s going to cause your neighborhood to turn into a concrete jungle.

Well since it sounds like you’re in a suburb or semi rural suburb, then you likely won’t need to speculate on that. Just wait a few years and you’ll find out.

Because instead of infill density in cities, the sprawl will keep up its creep. Low density building makes that certain.

With how it goes with new development in American suburbs, it’s going to be car oriented and increase loud traffic and make walking unpleasant. (Although it’s probably already not very walkable)

Someone on the new edge will repeat your gripe, rinse and repeat.

That place doesn’t practically exist in most of the US.

Why letting each city have the entire say on its planning is very obviously going to end badly for society. it’s not hard to see it’s a prisoners dilemma or tragedy of the commons type fiasco.

I have a hard time believe that people aren’t aware of that. Especially since we tried it for decades and the obvious happened - it has gone horribly.

Of course the average current home owners in Palo Alto doesn’t want it to change. But Palo Alto doesn’t exist on an island or something. Why would the nearby towns have different views? Mountain View doesn’t want to change! San Mateo doesn’t want to change!

Wowza! How about that, now the entire bay won’t change if left to each town.

And you know what, for decades that’s what we did and we can see what happened. All we got for it was a massive housing shortage.

We tried letting towns set their policy. It went horribly, as it obviously would.

It’s like Kant, would the outcome be acceptable if all the similar actors took this action? No? Well why shouldn’t they if this town does it.

None of those are required in cities, and actually suburbs are the main cause of traffic jams.

The main noise in most places is traffic, and traffic is usually caused caused by sprawl, low density and car oriented building.

What you’re objecting to is fixed by more density

“ trips to places like disney world with the kids while staying in a nice hotel vs biking and camping”

Woahhh there, thinking camping is an inferior trip is wrong. Being cheaper isn’t inferior.

But the DSRC doesn’t contract my understanding, it just shows there’s a floor to the number of unrented units.

Actually considering the DSRC it seems a large landlord would be more unlikely to lower rents unless desperate. Otherwise as people renew or lease at the lower rate, they’ll have less and less buffer

Value/Price of commercial real estate are significantly determine by theoretical rent, so are the commercial loans.

It’s a positive feedback loop of high rent. There is no theoretical abstract proper rent just waiting to be discovered like that comment seems to think exists.

What!? Where has it been shown that rent price fixing makes tenants lives better? Why and how could price collusions algorithms make the life of a renter better? This sounds like something on would see on the real page website.

My understanding is that with the way commercial loans work, the landlords are actually incentivized to keep things vacate rather than lower rents.

Is that wrong?

I’d say the rents in the downtown area are not entirely due to lack of supply.

The large towers of “luxury” apartments definitely are willing to let units go vacant to maintain rent

If they don’t, real page threatens to give them the boot apparently.

Also it seems they make it a require multiple manager overrides to deviate.

But what real page is doing is not what you described.

If you looked at the rents, put yours at slightly higher than average and then strong armed the owners of the majority of similar units to do the same even if your vacancy rate goes up so that now yours is right at the new average, then it would be similar to real page.

Neither in the article nor in the top comments here has anyone pointed out that even legal marijuana is often contaminated with banned pesticides.

Luckily some LA times investigation spurred regulators to start caring a little bit.

I’m sure the smoke from weed itself isn’t great with regular exposure, but add partially combusted illegal pesticides and it sure sounds like a cancer soup. And black market weed has got to be even worse.

Sure perhaps there’s some difference in prevalence but I’m not even sure of that.

Believing humans transcended nature isn’t universal in western thought either - source: an American of Western European descent of a fairly typical background, I.e. me.

For a larger group, anyone who cares about global warming is clearly showing they do not separate humans from nature.

Sure on the other hand there are people who seem to believe humans are above nature, but it seems to be a fairly worldwide fallacy. Maybe some areas have a higher prevalence of the belief, but it’s nowhere near universal anywhere.

I wouldn’t call it a western viewpoint, looking at environmental records around the world it’s clear that both “Eastern” and “Western” cultures are both highly capable of showing wanton disregard to nature. Let’s not go out of our way to find contrived differences.

If anyone is confused by this, The top commented deleted the claim they’d made that “MAGA was a peace movement”. I saw it, but happened to refresh my page and then that line disappeared.

Knee jerk low effort references are funny?

I’m sorry for your loss.

I feel sorry for you.

> “ Do you really think Biden decided one day to pull out of afghanistan? Are you that naive?”

Wooopdeeda a strawman setup leading to yet another insult.

Sure I’ll take naive over brusque and abrasive online know-it-all throwing insults around at anyone with different views - your prior comment was flagged to death by the way.

> Imagine people being dumb enough to believe that matters of geopolitical importance is determined by elected officials. Especially a 'reality star' like trump.

Thanks for calling me dumb for thinking the POTUS has influence.

Anyway, Speak for yourself, I can’t imagine being so far down the deep state rabbit hole to think the president and commander in chief is purely a vapid figurehead.

Question: did you try to correct people when you saw them criticizing Biden or Trump for the Afghanistan pull out, since according to your comment they had nothing to do with it.

Why wouldn’t he just retire or start his own company if he was an executive for years? That doesn’t sound like he’s working for money anymore

Last I checked there’s a bunch of Baltic states on Russia's borders that are a nato members, sounds like they’re being invaded next if the concern you site is real. Which it’s not, (but if it is then that counteracts a bunch of your other points.)

And nuclear capable bases? Haha As if Russia, China, the USA would have a problem launching ICBMs targeting anywhere. Not a real concern.

Ukraine is just a territorial land grab by Putin pining for an empire.

That’s not comparable, that analogy is like saying I have a backyard so there’s no government monopoly on parks. It’s not like saying there’s a private tennis club and public tennis courts, or whatever other typical park amenities.

That flawed analogy is like saying I have a baton so police aren’t a monopoly on protection, when my analogy actually was private security companies.