3,233 karma · joined March 19, 2010
Hacker School (recurse center) batch[1]. My great grandfather was a clown named Zemo.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/jorelli; my proof: https://keybase.io/jorelli/sigs/qfLefSRzpZuCMRmTbonOu98s-GSF80avwYxBcf7K-84 ]
I own my home and I pay property taxes, nice try though.
> Comrade, I am speaking about "how it works" not "what would be really nice if..."
faced with "the rent going up is a problem for working class people" you're instantly taking the side of investors and positioning it through this lens:
> I want to make sure people understand the dynamics.
the problem is not that people don't UnDeRsTaNd ThE dYnAmIcS, the problem is that the dynamics actively incentivize the creation of an investor and speculator class that owns a substantial portion of the housing stock and drives price up based on speculation and not based on any actual need to use the product. The supply is artificially held low by the investor and speculator class, my argument is that this is actively harmful and that the idea that the only way to raise supply is to build more houses is wrong, because your framing assumes a vacancy rate of zero, which no major city has.
I don't think that's a useful framing, because it's again putting the framing in terms of market dynamics in a vacuum. People don't pick where they're born, they don't pick who their parents are, and they don't pick the socioeconomic status that they're born into or have as children. The majority of people are born somewhere and cannot really afford to leave. For example, 72% of Americans live in or near the city where they were raised (https://www.northamerican.com/infographics/where-they-grew-u...). Most people don't have the agency to pick where they live based on price alone, because other non-market factors become comparatively larger when you have less money. If you can pick where you live based on price and how interesting it sounds, congratulations, that is privileged position. That's not to shame that position or anything, I'm just saying that the problem has to be viewed from the standpoint that most people aren't in that position. People are interdependent with their relatives, their friends, and their neighbors. Moving costs more than simply the price sticker of your new home minus the price sticker of your old home: the social costs are enormous. I think that a basic right of modern societies should be that people should not be priced out of their homes because of the whims of investors. So again, I think the idea that these things should be viewed through the lens of market dynamics alone is inhumane.
> Your proposed solution will increase rent prices for people who can't afford to buy a house while pushing the housing prices down and making them more affordable to middle class.
ok maybe. My point isn't that I have the perfect solution, my point is that there are far more levers to pull than what was being suggested, and that I do not want to live in a society that considers the problem by only looking at markets and pricing.
there are so many problems with your post but the assumption that defunding the police is necessarily going to cause prices to collapse is probably the most obviously biased one.
the idea that you should view housing as simply a matter of supply and demand and not consider any externalities is an abominable position. All people need shelter, it's not something that people opt into for the enjoyment of it alone. By the logic you have presented, the top 1% of people banding together and buying up all of the housing and squeezing everyone else is perfectly fine if it makes the numbers look nice, regardless of how it affects people's lives. The way you have framed the problem is inhumane.
Another way to make rent more affordable is to raise the tax rate on income generated from residential rentals to the point that people are not buying up all of the housing stock for the sake of investment alone. Income from residential rentals is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income, the kind you get from actually doing something. Why would anyone work if they can just own someone else's house instead?
generally no, because this framing starts the conversation from a standpoint that you have a position, and it's the other person's responsibility to change your position, instead of your own responsibility.
> What's more, it's very expensive to get solid VR that doesn't, nevermind it still looks terrible even if you have a high powered rig.
have you used a Quest
- made by an evil society-destroying corporation
- sold out forever
also "jocky", which sure doesn't literally exist but it's hard to argue that it's meaningfully dissimilar to "jockey": (https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/J8RS) anyway this is pretty fun all the same.
in another episode of "algorithms doing a racism" I landed "cacadian", whose definition is "a black person" (we're ok so far) but the example sentence was "I'm the worst cacadian up here", which... https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/iTVc
"nondestructable" (https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/bBD3) is given the definition "of negligible quality or severity" but definitely gets used (spelled nondestructible) to mean "a thing that can't be destroyed" when talking about games with destructible environments
"downcycled" is definitely a word (https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/JRd8)
innocuous ones I liked include unclary (https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/ibNn), saucescent (https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/4VTH), nonboreal (https://l.thisworddoesnotexist.com/eCqw).
I think it's pretty fun.
I think your commentary is tautological reasoning that says the US Government's use of force is legitimate because the point of the US Government is to use force. I agree with mrobot's framing that your line of reasoning is authoritarian and proto-fascist. The "illegal shit" thing feels like a sidebar and not really important to mrobot's argument (and also a bit left-field), so I'm ignoring it entirely.
Governments don't exist for the purposes of exercising force, they exist for things like paving the roads, building hospitals, etc; for the benefit of the commons. Greater specialization leads to greater productivity, and administering things like "how do we pave the roads" is a specialization that all of society benefits from that no one person or entity should bear the responsibility of paying for. Establishing the taxation and monetary structure by which those things are funded is a core function of the government, and a legitimate one in my opinion, as I would rather live in a society where I simply pay my taxes than a society in which I have to sit around and decide which roads projects to "invest" in. I would like to "hire" someone to do that, and I do so by voting for a Superintendent of Highways (or whatever it's called in your jurisdiction), who receives a pay from the government, which is funded in part by the taxes I pay. All of that seems totally legitimate and has nothing to do with the usage of force or the legitimization of state violence.
The use of force by governments is indefensible far more often than it is defensible, and a core function of the citizenry is to question and investigate its governments use of force, and to use their voting rights to eject those in the government that would perpetrate indefensible uses of force against innocents, both domestic and foreign. We should always be questioning the government's usage of force. We should never, ever stop questioning the government's usage of force.
There are some legitimate uses of force. For example, the Nazi government used force, that was bad. We can all probably agree on that. Other governments used force to oppose them. That was good. Again, probably not controversial. Clearly, not all governments' usage of force is equivalently legitimate. It appears that your position is that the US Government's usage of force is more legitimate than other governments' usage of force, because they're the US Government. The idea that the usage of force is more legitimate if it's the US Government than if it's a different government, which is how I interpret your position, is a position so obviously jingoistic that I am embarrassed to have to clarify that I think it's preposterous.
Now let's say the US government formed a red team to attack the electrical grid of, I dunno, Iran. And let's say the Iranian government thought "we sure would like to have a blue team, let's buy some blue team tools", and all the blue team tools were made by ... American companies. Would those American companies be barred from selling blue team tools to the Iranian government, which the Iranian government would use to defend themselves against American aggression? That, in effect, is my question.
If these tools are legitimate tools, then other governments should have the ability to use them. If these tools are not legitimate tools, then no government should use them; not the US Government alone. That later position is what I'm interpreting these rules to mean: that these tools are dangerous, and so China shouldn't have them, but we're good guys, so don't worry, we can handle them safely. The rules aren't "you can't make tools that can be used to violate people's rights", the rules are "you can make and sell and profit off of making tools that can be used to violate people's rights so long as the customers are the US government and its friends, but not if the customers are governments we don't like". If those tools are illegitimate and prone to abuse, then I don't want my own government having them either! The ruling I want is "Don't make PRISM", not "You can sell PRISM to us but not to China".
> The entire premise of government is that is assumes power over others.
No I don't think that's at all the entire premise of government. I think that statement is terrifying and authoritarian, and it is so terrifying that I originally didn't want to engage you. Since you've chosen to attempt to speak for me, I felt it only fitting to clarify my position for anyone that may make the mistake of taking my silence for agreement.
> pedestrians appear to choose paths that seem to point most directly toward their destination, even if those routes end up being longer. They call this the “pointiest path.”
The sample in the article for how people walk versus the shortest path has a lot of other attributes beyond "it looks like it points there". The example trip is in Boston, the destination is probably the Boston Marriott on Huntington Ave. Who is taking this path? Have they spent time in the area, or is it their first time here? At what time of day are they walking? Are all path segments similarly well-lit? Do they have any sense of urgency? Are all path segments equally interesting?
There is a reward for walking down an interesting street: it's interesting. You're stimulated. Is there a reward for making it to your destination in two minutes and ten seconds instead of two minutes and twenty seconds?
In the example trip, pedestrians along the sub-optimal path are mostly taking Dartmouth Street, which is a main street for that neighborhood. Most people who have spent any amount of time there will know that Dartmouth hits Huntington, so you can just take Dartmouth; a local would give directions as such, and a local would probably walk as such. Their optimal route along Canton and Harcourt Street requires pedestrians to twice know that there is a path that can continue when it does not appear on a street map; twice the path is disjoint. This doesn't appear to be acknowledged in the study. You would have to know the side streets very well to know that path was even an option, and explaining it to a tourist would be very cumbersome and involve a lot of steps. For example, assuming the pedestrian is exiting a building facing south, the path chosen by pedestrians can be explained thusly: "make a right when you get outside, then take your first right along Dartmouth, and keep going until you see a big intersection and make a left on Stuart". The optimal route: "make a right when you get outside, when the street ends take a right onto Cantor, and then stay on Cantor until it ends, cross over the pedestrian zone and you'll be on Harcourt. When you get to the corner of Harcourt and St Botolph, go over the sidewalk to continue along Harcourt because Harcourt is disjoint. Keep going along Harcourt until you reach the six-way intersection, and make a slight right onto Huntington." I know how ridiculous this is because I lived over there for five years. To compare these two routes as geometric shapes and ignore their actual features is of unclear value. The route preferred by Google Maps to go from 79 Warren Ave to Boston Marriott Copley Place is the shortest route; the route that people do _not_ take.
> pedestrians chose routes that were slightly longer but minimized their angular deviation from the destination
this is one way of looking at it, but another way of looking at it is that people take main roads because they know how the main roads connect but aren't sure which sidestreets connect and which ones have dead ends. The study also doesn't seem to mention time of day for the data and density of street lights; a more direct route going through an unlit street is likely not going to be the preference of a person walking at night.
Anyway, there is a very good book called "The Image of the City" by Kevin Lynch, which is about how people form mental models of the built environment. People use these mental models to navigate. One of the model cities in that book is also Boston, and the book also came from MIT. It is curious that none of the concepts mentioned in Lynch's book appear in this study; it seems to suggest that the authors believe that people only imagine the geometry of a space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Image_of_the_City
very influential book
> If that’s classist, then the classes are structured by knowledge and choices. Which they may well be.
class by its definition accounts for massive difference in access to resources. If you think access to resources doesn't measurably change the level of knowledge that a population has, that's a declaration that resources do nothing, which would be an odd stance to take on a knowledge-focused community website.
> They should walk or ride a couple of miles and buy the biggest bags of rice and beans they can, along with a bottle of multivitamins.
I just LOVE the subtle food choice of rice and beans here, paired with the recommendation to take multivitamins, a recommendation that is supported by little to no evidence. Your own lack of knowledge on this topic is in full display, as is a clear demonstration of your own biases across multiple dimensions.
I think this community has a huge problem with thinking that releasing the source code to things automatically makes them accessible and automatically empowers other people, but there are plenty of open-source projects that are actively user-hostile. The reality is that all too often on this site when people say "I wish this was open source" they aren't saying that out of any interest for how that would make the project better or create a better community, but instead are saying it from a standpoint that only considers how it would benefit them personally.
there's a lot here.
Manual changes in your staging environment shouldn't affect your tests, because your tests should be isolated from other environments.
Also fixtures are generally bad. Given some fixture representing an initial state S, a test utilizing this fixture along with some acceptance criteria is essentially testing that given the state S, running the tests executes some transformation T such that the state of the system is now S2; acceptance criteria evaluate S2 against some known-good value to confirm that T is the desired transformation. This is meaningless if the initial state S is not actually reachable by the system. The fixture itself does not prove that S is reachable: that S is reachable is taken as an act of faith.
So how do you determine that the initial state S is reachable by the system? Well, you have some other test, that starts with an initial state of nothing, that performs some transition (generating and inserting random data instead of using a fixture, for example) and gets nothing into the state S. By doing this, you've both created the state S _and_ verified that S is a valid, reachable state. Now you run your second test after the first test in sequence. To run N tests off of initial state S, you replay the initial test that produced state S N times, once for each dependent test. Sure that's a lot of work, but each sequence of testing events can be run in isolation from the others, so they can be run in parallel.
This is just as nefarious as a traditional SAAS application, if not more so. Google is setting up a system whereby you can have the data on your own machine, but the actual logic of how to interpret the data is still loaded off of a server on-demand, with the end goal being that they can charge you rent to access files on your own device. Pretty cool for them, but seems like a raw deal for the end-user.
some games do, some games don't. Different games have different goals.
It's not clear what you're saying here. What is "pure consumerism"? Are you suggesting that aesthetics is bad? It's a stylish object. People enjoy stylish objects.
> the games are there but not promoted.
that's probably because the developers are still working on the games and aren't ready to fully show them off yet.
yes
> The SDK will be available on macOS, Windows, and Linux. There are two ways to write games: using Lua, for ease of development; or using C, for games that need extra performance. You can also use both languages in the same project. Typical SDK abilities are included: graphics, sound, inputs, text, collisions, etc. We continue to add features every day!
^ that's from https://play.date/dev/