2,809 karma · joined March 1, 2012
There's a lot of empirical evidence that people will chose bikes over cars if the infrastructure made it safe and convenient, even with terrible weather. Paris, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam come to mind, but there are many more examples.
And that's the point. These places are less than affordable because there's a much higher demand of people who want to live in these kinds of areas than the supply of them. We should build more!
The DeBlasio administration was the first to add a "night mayor", and they made it easier to open legit venues in the same neighborhoods that used to host the illegal warehouse parties, like that triangle just west of Flushing avenue centered around the Morgan L train stop, where Elsewhere and The Brooklyn Mirage among a few other big, high priced venues are now.
In exchange for making it easier to open more venues and have more legal dance parties, they cracked down on the illegal parties pretty hard. This had the effect of pushing the prices up, changing the scene and crowd, and introducing more regulations. Before, you had to be a little more plugged in to know when and where the parties were because they were "underground" (but only a little). You could also reliably dance until 6 or 7am and buy all the alcohol you wanted whenever.
Now, these parties are way more mainstream so people who are less enthusiastic about dancing show up because it's something accessible to do, and everything must legally shut down at 4.
I remember being excited that things were going legit because I thought it would make the parties that I frequented better, but now with the benefit of hindsight over the past 8 or so years, I think it's had a negative impact on the scene, along with all the other issues related to the ubiquity of cell phones and the changing gen z tastes.
I still long fondly for Bushwick circa 2012, but it might just be more "Back in my day..." nostalgia.
I just want to know what the price of something is and make my own decisions about whether or not it's worth it. The social and mental gymnastics over tipping is just exhausting.
Tipping also allows for price discrimination (a good thing in an economic sense). People who are well off tend to pay more, but people who can't pay as much can still be customers.
I find it really annoying too, but there are some reasons to keep it around. 30% is just crazy though.
[1] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-does-tipping-still-exis...
Computer Systems Engineering
> About inventing programming, from the ground up. (A weird sub-discipline of mathematics and category theory)
Computer Science
> Learning to make software in order to improves the lives of humans
Software Engineering
The key word there "independently". Proof of resources is one way to tell if an individual node is actually independent.
Proof of resources gives an individual who has more invested in the network more weight in deciding which "bank nodes are genuine". Those individual's votes in theory deserve more weight because proof of resources assumes those individuals are harder to influence (or bribe) and have a stronger incentive to keep the network functioning because they have more at stake. These systems are trying to ensure that the nodes that have the power to accept or reject "money" only accept "good money" and always reject "bad money", and they're using demonstration of resources as a proxy of trustworthiness and independence.
Whether someone ties a bunch of money into specialized ASIC chip that's really only good for mining bitcoin, or they tie a bunch of money into staking eth is an implementation detail.
That "just" is doing a lot of work in this phrase. We live in an interconnected society consisting of lots of quasi independent actors organized in families, office locations, schools, businesses, and many other organizations. Coordinating a change in operating hours for _everyone_ is deceptively difficult.
If a person with a school aged kid wants to individually go to work an hour earlier relative to the sun, you're proposing that he lobbies his employer to set work hours an hour earlier, then lobbies his kid's school principal to start the school day an hour earlier so he still has time to drop his kid off, and then lobbies his favorite coffee shop to open an hour earlier so he can still sip his latte while he walks into the office. The employer has to coordinate with all of the other employees, who have to coordinate with their spouses and families and kid's schools, and favorite coffee shops. The principal has to coordinate with all of the teachers and the parents of all the other kids. The communication complexity of this scheme is exponential. Of course, there will be many opinions about how smart and stupid this change would be, so we'd also need a way to incorporate all of this feedback to make a decision that everyone will follow.
It turns out that we've already developed a method to manage the complexity of gathering feedback and making binding decisions in coordination problems like this. It's called the political system. We elect representatives to the government. Those representatives make proposals, debate those proposals, and, sometimes, pass them into binding laws that everyone has (implicitly) agreed to follow.
So yes, you're right that is "all [we] are doing". It's just that when you live in a country of over 300 million people, the most practical way of having everyone "agree" to do anything is by using the pre-established political system and passing a law. It's much more practical to pass a law that shifts the official clocks back an hour than to mandate starting and stopping times for every single organization in existence.
1: https://github.com/tonsky/datascript 2: https://www.datomic.com/ 3: https://github.com/metasoarous/datsync