scottious

Very much disagree. Plenty of people would be fine living in multi-family housing. Everything from apartments to 2-family houses.

74% of people live in SFH right now in the US. How many of those have actually never experienced living in multi-family homes? Probably most of them. How can you prefer something you've never even tried?

Also, keep in mind that in many places SFH is literally the only choice right now.

Given real estate prices in places like Boston and NYC I think multi-family housing is doing just fine

again, higher costs != shortage. It just means "desirable"

Just build more of the thing that people want!

YES. I think homeowners are too close to the problem to make rational choices.

People move to a place and then expect it to never change again. After all, they bought a house there because they liked it as it is now.

All that does is create places that are encased in amber and unable to adapt. Homeowners have a disproportionate say. aspiring homeowners don't show up to local city council meetings

The top-down approach surely has problems too, I'm not denying that. I just think we need people in charge who can look at the problem holistically and say "hey maybe that inner suburb next to transit shouldn't force you to have a 1/2 acre lot".

This is a complicated issue. What if those people in charge decide your town would be better as a highway? I don't know... it's complicated.

that seems like complete BS claim. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

increased density and transit increases demand for that area. high demand != shortage.

What are you suggesting exactly? low density and car-dependency is the solution to our housing problems?

I don't think anybody would call me extroverted. I'm a typical introverted engineer. humans are social creatures!

when you're in a car, the possibility for a positive social interaction is nearly 0. I don't know about you but I've never been happier after driving my car

when you're not in a car, there's just more opportunities for small social interactions. You can choose to take those opportunities or not, but they're there. There's just something different about being eye-to-eye with people and not separated by a sound proof metal and glass cage

Space to play, but nowhere to go. Everybody has their own private space which isn't great for social interaction. Kids have to be driven everywhere which isn't great for families

Cities have shared parks. I don't have any yard. But I have wonderful parks within short walking distance. There are far more amenities and so much more to offer at public parks than private yards. It's a shared backyard

In the suburbs, everybody has their own play structure in their back yard. In cities, we have bigger, better play structures that more kids can use simultaneously which encourages more social interaction.

That's not a universal truth. I grew up in the suburbs and I've lived in a city for my whole adult life. I feel a MUCH stronger sense of community in the city. I know so many of my neighbors that it's hard to leave my house without running into somebody I know.

It's funny that as a child in the suburbs I had maybe 10 neighbors within a half mile and we only knew 2 of them. I never saw them. There were no sidewalks and people didn't walk around.

In fact, in our typical suburban boredom, sometimes we'd sneak around our neighbor's properties to see if we could learn who they were. We were pretending to be spies. One time we discovered that our closest neighbors had goats and we were blown away. I never did meet the people living in those suburban houses in the 10 years we lived in that house.

I live in a city similar to NYC (but not quite as dense) and IMO it's far better for kids than the suburbs.

I grew up in the suburbs and it was a miserable experience. If I wanted to go anywhere I had to ask an adult to drive me. There were no sidewalks. Nearest friend's house was a mile away, and my parents were understandably afraid of letting us go there alone. It was a 100% car-dependent suburb. Everything was so spread out. Nobody wanted to live on a main road with cars, so there were endless dead-ends and culs-de-sac so everybody can have their own little traffic-free neighborhood

One time I literally WALKED SIX MILES to the mall because I was just so bored. I literally spent about half a day just walking on streets with cars going 40+ miles per hour with no shoulder. What's worse is that I had to go behind my parents back to do it because who wants their kid walking next to F-150s going 40 miles an hour?

I thought things would get better once I could drive. Things improved a little bit, but it's hard to afford a car + insurance + gas at 17 years old. The car was a huge drain on my limited resources. I was so eager to get rid of it

Once I discovered the "rat cages" you're deriding, life became a whole lot better for me. I refuse to raise my kids in the suburbs. Kids deserve better than that.

My experience is literally the exact opposite. Suburbs were lifeless, soulless places and the city is where my social life got measurably better. There's no way I can ever go back to the suburbs now

Another problem with the suburbs is car-dependency. When you're in a car you're not interacting in a positive way with other people. In the best case scenario you're just isolating yourself and in the worst case scenario you're angry and frustrated at other people on the road.

This stands in stark contrast to my car-free life. Every time I go out of the house to travel somewhere, I run into people I know. I say hi to strangers. I nod to pedestrians crossing the street. I have a brief conversation with somebody on the bus. I didn't expect that traveling by transit or bike would have such a positive impact on my well-being.

Knowing what I know now, it's not possible for me to go back to a suburban car-dependent life. It would be a major step backwards

I swear so many societal problems have their roots in the attitude of "I've got mine, screw everybody else"

I've seen people completely change their attitudes about things once they own a home. I know a self-proclaimed liberal who claims to care about people suddenly go all NIMBY because they are buying a $2M house and now they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood and don't like the idea of more housing being built ("we're full"). They feel entitled to a high (and increasing) property value in a desirable area.

I hate it so much

Do you also support legalization of hard drugs? Why not have a heroin store in every town. The customers are very loyal. Let people waste their money on drugs, it's not my place to tell people what to spend their money on. Who knows, maybe we'll get heroin ads on the subway. In fact, let's let cigarette companies also advertise again! what could possibly go wrong?

A better way to think about it is that all letters in the musical alphabet are represented in a musical scale. Some are sharp or flat

D major: D E F♯ G A B C♯

D minor: D E F G A B♭ C

Db major: D♭ E♭ F G♭ A♭ B♭ C

Db minor: D♭ E♭ F♭ G♭ A♭ B♭♭ C♭

I'm genuinely surprised that you don't know lots of people who enjoy living in a city for its own sake and not only because something is keeping them there.

Well, nice to meet you, I'm a city dweller who works from home and can technically live where ever I want. I choose the city because I like it and I want my family to have nice things. I like walking to the kid's school and not owning a car and being close to amenities.

"do people really like cities? I am not so sure"

Just look at real estate prices in New York, SF, Boston, etc. Yes, people REALLY like cities. Even the wealthiest people who can afford anything still choose cities

"If there is no longer a reason for people to live close together, decentralization is the most likely outcome."

Umm what? Humans are social animals and many people LIKE living in cities in close proximity to other people and close to amenities. I do not see a future where we decentralize and spread out because of AI.

My 10 year old brain was blown when I discovered the Buddy Holly music video on the Windows 95 CD. I just couldn't comprehend the idea of a music video being played on a computer. Felt like magic. Such different times.

I wouldn't say social media is just "filling a void". I feel like it's more accurate to say that social media is exploiting weaknesses in the human brain for profit and causing harm to individuals and society as a whole. I'd even say that it's preventing people from filling that void because it's sucking away people's time.

Imagine if a tobacco executive said "you remove cigarettes and people will just replace it with alcohol or other drugs or another vice altogether". It may be true for some people but overall we've reduced harm by fighting back against cigarettes

That kind of algorithm doesn't show you anything besides the messages in your inbox. It's never making a decision to show you X instead of Y, it's just deciding the ordering in which you see them.

Modern social media is choosing from a vast pool of content and the algorithm's entire goal is to maximize engagement for monetary gain (at whatever cost to society). There's only so much "engagement maxing" you can do with an email sorting algorithm especially if the premise for an email inbox is that you'll always only ever see your emails and nothing else.

The whole "running destroys your knees" thing is a very persistent myth. Running can cause temporary knee injuries, especially in beginners. In the long run it actually strengthens your knees. There has been quite a lot of research on this but unfortunately, it's still in the cultural zeitgeist that running is bad for your knees

Of course, every person is different. Anecdotally, my knees and hips are so much stronger now than they were 15 years ago after running over 20k miles.

I actually do run every day. I've only missed about 4 days so far this year. Anyway, 3 days of running per week is certainly better than 0.

I'm not saying we should ban stuff.

I'm saying that we could enact policies that encourage better habits by default. For example, we don't have to build car-dependent suburbia. Car-dependency is a choice we made. We've largely outlawed the building of walkable cities through zoning codes. There are literally millions upon millions of people who are forced into car-dependent suburbia and stuck with 9-5 jobs where they have to spend 1.5 hours commuting. It's no wonder people find it difficult to exercise. Add kids into the mix and it becomes almost impossible to find the time to drive to a gym to exercise 5 days a week. Many of these suburban cities are openly hostile to people not in cars.

That whole thing I just described is a series of policy choices. We can't save people from themselves but we can encourage better lifestyle choices. People would walk more if there were more stuff to walk to. People would bike to work if it were made possible.

Also, honestly, a world with fewer cars would be a much better place.

For those who are inclined, I recommend running instead (even if you think you aren't a runner)

My body has been completely transformed from 15 years of running. I'm 5'7" and 135 pounds at age 41. My face looks thin, I have a better body than most 20 year olds. I gave myself the best gift that I could possibly give myself.

If they could distill 15 years of running (5x per week) and put it in pill form, I truly believe it would be the most valuable thing medicine has ever created.

All it takes is 45 minutes per day for 5 days per week. And you can actually have fun while doing it! It takes a long time to get to that point but it's so worth it.

It is a bit crazy that everybody seems to agree that diet and exercise are important, and yet it seems like society is hell bent on making those things very hard to do well.

I went to the mall recently (big mistake) and I had to get lunch at the food court. I don't think there was a single gram of fiber across the 10 or so restaurants. So much of America is drive-thru garbage. Yup -- you don't even have to stand up to get your Big Mac. You can endanger other people by eating it while you drive.

We tell people to get exercise and then force them to have 9-5 desk jobs that have a 45 minute car-commute each way. And what's so much worse is that people are paying a ton of money for that car that's slowly killing them. It's not entirely their fault though -- that's just the way our society is set up. Walkability is a luxury only the rich can afford.

Then, 20 years later you show up to the doctor and the standard course of action is to prescribe a bunch of medications. The doctor says "you should exercise more and eat better" and many people just don't.

So much is broken.

Exercise really is a wonder drug. The best of the best!

If only doctors could prescribe it and have people adhere to the prescription.

If only American culture weren't so car-centric and our daily lives involved some natural amount of exercising. We've built a society where only the privileged few can walk or bike to work. It's just too easy these days to barely move in our normal life. Drive to work, drive to the store, drive the kids places... you literally have to specifically schedule exercise (and ironically, many people will drive to the gym to walk on a treadmill).

It's not that simple. Owning a home is not just a better version of renting. It's a whole different thing with pros and cons.

Your mortgage is the lowest amount you'll pay. On top of that you have to manage the upkeep of the house, which costs both time and money. Lots of people go through phases in their lives where they move around and owning just doesn't make sense for a few 1 to 2 year stretches.

On the other hand, rent is the highest amount you'll pay. You generally don't have to worry about upkeep, and you're free to move. The commitment is lower and that has real value for certain people at certain stages of their lives.

I rented for 6 years in different areas until I figured out what I liked, and then I bought a house. Those 6 years weren't just wasted years. Those were very valuable years where renting really made the most sense.

I agree that there are some quirks to music theory but ultimately I think it's a very good system that was been refined over hundreds of years.

As for your point about A->B being a larger interval than B->C. There are two half-steps in the white keys (B->C and E->F) because there are two half steps in the major scale! This way, you can play C to C with all white keys and get a major scale.

A major scale is probably one of the most fundamental building blocks in western music theory and it's encoded right onto the keyboard layout itself.

The oddities of music theory are no more strange than all of the strange things in the English language that we just shrug about and move on once we learn it.

the job description of a junior engineer can change. junior engineers can use AI to make themselves more productive too

Fair point. I don't know the answer to that question but we definitely live in one of the worst timelines right now.

I understand and sympathize with the motivation here... but not all software engineering is bad. The best job I've ever had was working on cancer research as a software engineer. Brilliant biologists need engineers to help them run their analysis at scale to make discoveries. It was a non-profit, people genuinely cared and the org was good. Pay wasn't FAANG competitive of course, but my point is that not all software jobs are terrible.