Why shouldn't the creation of knowledge and expertise come with a price tag? The question is "is it cheaper to create a system that creates new expertise than it is to hire someone with that expertise?" As long as the cost of the system is less than the cost of the generated expertise on the open market, it's a worthwhile investment.
Sure, we could assign price tags to every human interaction and never stop. But isn't it better for everyone to build a collective wiki of knowledge that we can all share and rely on? If I spend an entire day digging through the webpack documentation to perform a certain task, I'll gladly share that knowledge freely with anyone who asks, because I think it's a complete waste of human existence for each of us individually to learn how to wrangle webpack into submission.
The question becomes: If I've already put in the work, what cost is there to me to make my knowledge freely available in the form of a SO answer? Usually the answer is "not much".
This gets at one of the core beliefs lots of people seem to have about socialism: that human nature means it will be implemented poorly.
It's pretty hard to test that out, though, when one side of the political spectrum is so convinced it will happen that they devote a significant amount of political effort to making sure it happens, preventing us from ever finding out what a well-funded and run socialist experiment would look like in the US.
> socialist entities EVER is a very strong factual argument
But it's false.
Vietnam works for example, it even handled covid much better than other turbo capitalist powers.
And every socialist experiment has been characterized by different approaches and circumstances.
Rather than a factual argument, it's more an uninformed generalization, that sounds too close to the propaganda we are pushed on by media/politicians.
Do you want a strong factual argument?
Despite their claims, not a single capitalist nation has managed to solve poverty. And they won't ever, because without poverty there can't be the hierarchy much needed to force people to behave like cogs into the capitalist machine.
Did you read the origins of their zoning code? "Protecting" the city by attempting to limit Black people to certain areas. Not a great look.
A lot of zoning code is based on similar ideas, even if most people are not dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud these days.
You do still hear it on occasion: Bend, Oregon, where I live, passed a similar change a few years back, which was then superseded by Oregon's HB 2001, which effectively eliminates exclusionary zoning in our cities. At the local hearing for the Bend rule, there was a woman who was really upset that "renters" might be able to live in her neighborhood. They're dirty, messy, and "don't care about where they live", according to her testimony.
> A lot of zoning code is based on similar ideas, even if most people are not dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud these days.
That's the way it's always been. Here's an '80s example I ran across just the other day, and I'm actually grimly impressed by the clever video editing that puts up a WW2-era photo of mostly-white schoolkids to anchor a viewer's thinking away from "is this racist?" just as he says the worst part about "them" lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=973&v=jCMvOiupDLo
I can’t say what was in that woman’s head, but neighborhoods that have a lot of rentals tend to have a different character independent of race. Homeowners have stable enough lives to have saved up a down payment, they tend to be older and have families. They also have a reason to not annoy their neighbors, because they will have to live with them for many years.
Now, younger less settled people also need places to live, and the Bay Area’s solution is to send them to Stockton or something, but not everything is about race.
"Homeowners have stable enough lives to have saved up a down payment, they tend to be older and have families. They also have a reason to not annoy their neighbors, because they will have to live with them for many years."
This can be generalized - beyond the housing debate - as "having skin in the game".
As someone who has been (at various times) a short and long term renter, a landlord, and a homeowner ... it rings true to me that, generally speaking, renters invest less in their homes and their neighborhoods and have less at stake in the outcomes of those neighborhoods/communities.
That was certainly the case with me as a renter.
I don't think it's morally negative to segregate neighborhoods on the basis of renting vs. owning. The attempts to link this kind of segregation to past periods of literal racial segregation is, in my opinion, going to find less and less traction - especially as non-white stakeholders (homeowners) aspire to the same kind of skin-in-the-game cooperation with their neighbors.
> non-white stakeholders (homeowners) aspire to the same kind of skin-in-the-game cooperation with their neighbors.
What about the rampant housing discrimination in home-buying (without any enforcement) [0]? What about massive racial wealth disparates?
I think it is pretty naïve to suggest that the current backlash against having "renters" has nothing to do with race. Not more naïve than suggesting it only has to do with race, but close.
Or, we could take a shortcut and ask those very people what they think and what they would like.
Which is to say, let's find some non-white stakeholders (homeowners) with skin in the game in their neighborhoods and communities and ask them what they think.
I drive through some very nice, very well ordered, single family zoned nieghborhoods in Fremont - the owners of which are predominantly non-white. The same exists in many other bay area communities.
Are those people vehemently advocating for upzoning and loss of local control ? Do those people have a strong preference for owners over renters ?
Thanks for sharing that article. I agree that those who are setting different financial requirements for different races or asking for different information (like identification) before showing homes are discriminating based on race, and should be investigated. Leaving those instances aside, there are also times when directing clients to certain neighborhoods based on race may not be a bad thing. For example many minorities want to seek out a community they are comfortable with (in terms of language, access to religious services, ethnic grocery stores, or even just neighbors with similar lifestyles). This is especially true for first-generation immigrants or the elderly, for whom living in a less ethnically-accommodating neighborhood may be a difficult adjustment because they may not have shared experiences with those around them.
In San Francisco proper, prices fell, because supply and demand are real, but those people spread out and prices are getting worse in a ton of other places, like where I live.
> it rings true to me that, generally speaking, renters invest less in their homes and their neighborhoods and have less at stake in the outcomes of those neighborhoods/communities.
Note that this isn't true in locations with actual renter's rights, like Switzerland.
"Economic segregation" is what I wrote, so not just race, but keeping those with less money away from "nice" neighborhoods and their good schools.
Plenty of people who rent might buy if there were more opportunities to do so, which there would be if housing weren't such an artificially scarce good in the US.
And when you describe 'those neighborhoods', keep in mind that that's probably a policy. If all neighborhoods had a mix of people, you wouldn't have quite so much of a concentration of people who aren't as wealthy.
> If all neighborhoods had a mix of people, you wouldn't have quite so much of a concentration of people who aren't as wealthy.
I don't think this is possible, or even desirable.
A huge part of a home's value is the neighborhood. How much crime is there? How good are the schools? How are the neighbors?
A "fancy" house and an "affordable" house in the same neighborhood are not going to have a large price difference. If you revert every neighborhood to the mean, then you more or less revert all property prices to the mean. Which means you have erased all the "affordable" housing options, and also reduced the QOL of the top 50% of people.
You're missing the simple factor of square footage. A 1000 sq ft unit is going to be about a quarter of the price of a 4000 sq ft one for the simple reason that otherwise the larger unit would be subdivided or vice versa. So people with less money get less space, but that doesn't mean they can't live on the same street.
Also, even to the extent that values are dominated by other factors, the intention is to increase housing availability through higher supply and lower prices. All housing becoming as expensive as upper middle class housing would be a problem, but all housing becoming as affordable as existing low income housing would be great.
Your expectation is that a 1000 sq ft "house" on a quarter acre of land would cost on the order of the same amount as a 4000 sq ft "house" on a full acre of land?
I'm saying that houses and plots of land with houses on them are not trivially subdivided like apartment complexes are. It is rare to see a house directly across the street from a house that is 4x larger and on 4x as much land. But if you did, the price difference between those houses would be much less than 4x, because so much of the value of a home comes from the neighborhood.
Its the same exact reason why houses cost more in Boston than in Wyoming, but on a different scale. The value of a home is heavily influenced by its location.
I think its reasonable to expect this to be more true of houses than apartments. Someone who is buying a house and putting down roots is going to care more about "the neighborhood" than someone who plans to move on in a year or two.
> It is rare to see a house directly across the street from a house that is 4x larger and on 4x as much land.
This is unambiguously as a result of zoning. It's rare to divide a one acre plot into four quarter acre plots because it's prohibited.
> Its the same exact reason why houses cost more in Boston than in Wyoming, but on a different scale. The value of a home is heavily influenced by its location.
Nobody is disputing that. But all that means is that a quarter acre plot in Boston costs the same as a full acre plot in Wyoming. It still costs a lot less than a full acre plot in Boston, which is often the only option the existing zoning makes possible.
You could at the very least, leave it to the market, rather than using government policy mostly shaped by older, wealthier people to heap more crap on people who are in less fortunate circumstances.
Where I lived in Italy, you actually had very different homes very close by - big expensive single family units right next to 10 plexes that are far more affordable.
Frankly, I think it was healthier for my kids to go to school there with both some kids from wealthy families as well as Nigerian immigrants. Their schools here are much more homogeneous.
> Plenty of people who rent might buy if there were more opportunities to do so, which there would be if housing weren't such an artificially scarce good in the US.
America has the cheapest housing in the Developed world. SF is not cheap, but its still cheaper than big cities in Europe.
Oh, I know something about that! I own a home in Padova, Italy.
Land is mostly cheaper in the US, but Italy and most of Europe provide far more housing options, in large part because they do not impose things like single family zoning.
Padova has twice the population of the town where I live here in the US, in about the same area, and housing is cheaper.
The economy isn't great there, but that's a separate story from housing. If it were hotter, it's a place where you can simply build homes in many shapes and sizes, from small apartments to nice villas.
some neighbourhoods are nice in and of themselves, due to their geography, proximity, etc.
most however are good only because of the people that reside in it.
When people of different classes ( not races ) have different opinions on what 'good' means, there is only going to be confusion.
even a good neighborhood, once it is deemed as undesirable, will lose its values, its taxes, and soon, its schools.
There are dual problems with renters, my personal experience leads me to believe it is not the renters that are the problem in neighborhoods with high amounts of renters.
While it is true the renter does not have "skin in the game" it is also true that many landlord put in only the absolute bare minimum of resources to maintain the rental property.
For example my grandmother before she passed lived in a aging neighborhood, as the original residents passed the homes where sold off as investment properties. She generally had a good relationship with most of the renters however the owners of homes routinely refused to repair things, refused to have proper tree maintenance done, and other such problems that would not be the responsibility of the renter.
If the property is adjacent to a gentrified neighborhood but not yet pricey, the landlord can degrade service until the low income tenants leave, renovate the property, and charge new gentrified prices as well. I know of a couple buildings in the DMV area that were doing this within the last 10 years
Well in my families case it was what ever the reverse of gentrification is. As the original owners died off in that neighborhood the neighborhood got worse and worse, more crime, less value, etc etc etc
The owners of the properties were not waiting out the poor people hoping to strike it rich like you seem to be implying
Just because the original intent may have bad doesn't mean that single family zoning in and of itself is bad. There are lots of municipalities with single family zoning. Mine does. Mine also doesn't allow any commercial property. And lots must be one acre or more. The residents want it this way. What's wrong with that?
Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out".
Also contributes massively to sprawl and thus carbon emissions because you can't have a more traditional sort of neighborhood where people might walk to the park and corner store.
Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want - that's fine! Imposing it on everyone is economic segregation.
>>> Government enforced 1 acre lots is a good proxy for "keep the poor people out".
Uhhh not in the very least. Many of us want to live in areas that have 3-acre minimum lots because of a little thing called nature. Those who want to live crammed into micro-apartments with 1 tree for every 30 people can, but those of us who want a whole town that is more grass that pavement should NOT be accused of classism or racism.
If you really want to help poor people, figure out a system that doesn't box them into ever-decreasing concrete apartments further and further from clean air.
Cities are actually 'greener' if you look at things on a global scale, rather than just having few trees outside that a few species (deer, say) have somewhat adapted to living in the urban/wildland interface.
If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over?
Now, I strongly agree that people ought to have the right to purchase and live on a large lot if they want. Great, you earned it, have fun!
Requiring that? That's using the government to perpetuate a sprawly, carbon-intensive lifestyle that very much does exclude those who are not wealthy enough to purchase that much land. That's part of the point in many places with that kind of regulation.
The majority of residents of an area using the government to control that area is the pinnacle of democracy.
>> If everyone lived on 3 acres, you know how much truly wild land would be paved over?
Actually, no there's plenty of land in America. Nothing would be paved, it would just be moved to yards (hint yards aren't paved). And if the population doesn't grow, then there's no reason America can't live like that forever.
When excluding illegal immigration, the US population is actually shrinking. There's no need to artificially box ourselves in.
Every human could have about 2 acres. At this level of distribution humans would essentially live in wilderness and integrate with nature. Oftentimes humans live in family groups so the actual point distribution would be uneven.
Unfortunately arable land needed to feed the humans varies by locale but tops at about .6 hectacres [0] or 1.48 acres[1]. This means that effective wilderness could be slightly less than .5 acres per human after some nominal usage for housing and utility right of ways.
That's false though. There are a lot of animals that do not want to be anywhere near humans, roads, houses or anything else. The presence of people wrecks it for them. Not to mention the jacked up carbon emissions if everyone had to drive around for everything because everyone is spread out.
Yes, there is some spatial optimization needed insofar as one would likely not want to be two acres in linear distance away from one’s infant. The habitable surface allocation could be thought of as virtual and fractional which would also account for point differences in relative value such as a natural spring, naturally occurring commodities like a gold mine or the human interest in subjective value like Hawaiian beachfront, all of which may change over time. Along the line of subjective preference is overall inter-human proximity in which some might choose higher or lower depending on intended lifestyle.
Human-avoiding life already has a hard time. The habitable surface estimate did not include many areas where the remaining ones exist, such as tundra, ice pack, mountains and deserts. Additionally inter-human proximity preference distribution will allow for additional area outside the aforementioned surface classifications.
>>Nothing against people owning a 1 acre lot if they want
Sounds like you do, you more or less accused anyone that desires a 1 acre plot of classism or wanting to "keep the poor people out", and of wanting to destroy the environment.
In reality most people that want that simply desire privacy, I for example desire that because i do not want to "walk to the corner store" or have a park at all in my neighborhood. I do not want to have "neighborhood" events, or be able to talk to my neighbor from my porch.
I want privacy, I want to be able to enjoy my hobbies which are solitary pursuits not group activities.
My town is fully built out, so it's not being imposed upon anyone except perhaps developers. Nobody can purchase a house and tear it down and build four in it's place. The lot is only zoned for one house.
Central planning is not something we should be encouraging, except for cases where the market fails. It's not clear to me there's a market failure that's being corrected with single family zoning.
Central planning leads to a situation where market signals are ignored, and entrenches the status quo, rather than allowing cities (and economies in general) to change as needed. It seems highly unlikely that we've stumbled upon the "perfect" land use pattern. Why make it impossible to change from it then?
I'm referring to zoning as the central planning. It's central planning at a local scale, but still central planning.
Instead of letting each town set its own course, why not just let each property owner set their own course (within reasonable limits for market failures, like safety)?
My entire point is that restrictive zoning is the bureaucrats in the city governments deciding what the best use is for each plot of land, rather than letting the market decide based on demand.
Also, if we look at the Berkley case (which is what the OP is about!), there was no external force, the town made the change on its own.
We're discovering that zoning is a tragedy of the commons style issue where it may sound good for any individual city, but is detrimental if everyone does it. It makes no sense to put on blinders with respect to the problems cities create just because of some notion that cities can operate in a vacuum, narrowly focused inward at the expense of good citizenship.
> Did you read the origins of their zoning code? "Protecting" the city by attempting to limit Black people to certain areas. Not a great look.
I've seen this claim in this discussion but without hard evidence that this was the sole or even primary motivation at the time (who would you even measure/prove that?). Regardless, it isn't the motivation today behind zoning so I am not sure why it matters what the motivation was 100 years ago. I feel like that's a weak attempt by urban activists to associate a negative label (like "racist") with zoning to trivialize the legitimate reasons people like zoning restrictions.
People want zoning so that they can retain the kind of city or neighborhood character they want to live in. There's nothing wrong with incumbents resisting change that accommodates others at their own expense. The point of local government is to serve the incumbent residents first and foremost and I don't see why the desires of newcomers to live wherever they want at whatever price point they want supersedes the quality of life that existing residents have sought out and cultivated for themselves previously. Those newcomers are certainly free to move to a part of the country with less demand than the Bay Area and make a life there.
> It's economic segregation, plain and simple.
Not really. It's segregation by people who are invested in their community versus people who may move on because they haven't put down deep roots. And even if it was economic segregation in effect or directly, so what? I, and certainly most other parents, want a safe neighborhood for our families, and higher income neighborhoods typically experience less crime. I also want better educated and more successful people in my neighborhood, because their children form the environment and society my children are exposed to and influenced by. Leaving all that aside, an influx of renters changes a city's politics, culture, and other characteristics. I've seen this first-hand in Seattle where the dramatic changes of the last 10 years have really hurt the quality of life in this city and crowded out 'old Seattle' culturally. So I see many understandable and legitimate reasons for people to want to avoid renters.
So, if you end single family zoning, you'll likely be displacing lower-economic-status minorities once again. Perpetuating the cycle. Areas with cheaper land and higher rates of renter-occupied homes will be easier for developers to target and buy up the land.
I don't think you can make an argument that you're going to repair any past harms by doing this. I think the argument that you're going to continue them if you do this is much stronger.
> "Protecting" the city by attempting to limit Black people to certain areas.
Why do you put protecting in quotes? The residents of areas typically like to be protected from demographic disruption, especially if the disrupting demographic is known to bring problems.
> Not a great look.
People are more worried about the place that they have to live, work, and raise their children than they are about your patronizing condescension.
Call it racism, if you want. Homeowners conspiring to protect their neighborhood from people who aren't up to their standard isn't different than a country setting up an army to protect its borders from low quality foreigners.
Cities have many stakeholders. Residents, sure. But also businesses, workers, the homeless, the environment.
And there are tons of tradeoffs. Maybe by rezoning and not mandating single family homes, the increased population density will improve access to transit and services. It's not necessarily as cut and dried as "Rezoning is negatively perceived by current residents, therefore don't do it".
"Wait, you have a problem with a city government trying to serve the people who actually live in a neighborhood rather than potential new residents?"
I am not sure if you are asking this as a rhetorical question, but if not ...
This aspect of the housing (and democracy) debate in the bay area is now framed in terms which reject local decision making ("local control") if those local decisions reinforce existing, exclusionary housing policies.
Which is to say, we like local control when it delivers results we agree with - like non-federal legalization of marijuana or so-called "sanctuary cities" but we don't like local control when it delivers results we disagree with.
Becoming myopic with the only stakeholders that matter are the current residents has similar problems with corporations that place profits above all else.
I feel the issue is that the governments are primarily protecting property owners, which are not all of the city's residents. Property owners may prefer the status quo, but there's still an effect on the citizens who rent, which shouldn't be disregarded.
That's clearly not the kind of research that's going to be done.
Funding of gun studies means we can make arguments backed up by data instead of partisan bickering. Calls to arm teachers in classrooms or mandate trigger locks on guns have real world effects, and both sides think they're right about it. Funding for studies of specific actions and policies help us as a society make more informed decisions.
You will find that many of us gun rights supporters don't care what data comes out. I don't support 2a because fewer than n people die per year from guns.
That is a needless personal attack, and I notice that you fail to make a coherent argument against what I said. Do you favor protections against unreasonable search and seizure only until too many criminals benefit from it? My point is that some people value liberty higher than life. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say why, though I honestly don't know that you'll change my mind on that.
> Psychopathy is a condition characterized by the absence of empathy and the blunting of other affective states. Callousness, detachment, and a lack of empathy...
That doesn't seem like a personal attack so much as pointing out that this belief lacks empathy and is callous, which I tend to agree with. The standard argument, which I'm sure you're aware of, is that some controls and regulations on the ownership of firearms is a net good for society by reducing accidental deaths, suicides, and murders.
Guns aren't responsible for any of those things, people are. But guns dramatically change the scale at which they happen. Ignoring that because of a belief in absolute freedom from regulation for machines designed to kill is callous and un-empathic. Or, to use a synonym, psychopathic.
> Being principled and having higher ideals is not callous. It's the most noble thing a person can do.
Having ideals is exactly noble, or ignoble, as the ideals. There is nothing noble about devotion to ideas independent of the ideas one is devoted to.
“A world free of Jews” is an ideal people have been devoted to. People who were more devoted to that idea and willing to sacrifice more for it are not more noble than those less devoted by reason of their devotion.
That's a straw man. At the macro level causes may be unjust sure.
But at the micro or individual level...sacrificing onesself for higher ideals/principles is the least psychopathic thing one can do
..one makes the ultimate sacrifice for what they believe is the betterment of OTHERS.
People may be misguided and some causes unjust, but they sacrificed themself for an ideal that they believe in.
It's the opposite of psychopathy.
Everything that you are and have is due to the sacrifices of many millions of people for principles they believed in. It's a shame modern society has become so ungrateful,materialistic, and distant from what so many people have sacrificed so much for.
That's not cool, it's not psychopathic to hold a different principle.
IMO, this is similar to things like unreasonable search and seizure, where there is a robust set of laws, regulation and court judgements to guide government activity.
Until relatively recently, the notion of having a well regulated environment in this area was broadly accepted. But... many of the pro-gun-sales crowd peddles in doom in the name of selling stuff.
See calling a SENTIMENT psychopathic is more coherent than calling a person (a human being) psychopathic. The world is bigger than your views/ideas about it. And you may be wrong. Please focus on the ideas from here on out instead of people. Your ideas may be incorrect.
These rules were created specifically because so many people were profiting off the ad revenue of music in videos. There's not a simple way to determine if the audio just happens to be in the background or if the content producer is benefiting from the inclusion of music they don't have rights to.
The creation of a trueRandom function certainly seems to solve this problem more than taking away a useful tool for cases where pseudo-random is good enough.
It's really not clear cut in either way on the surface.
On one side, you can argue that leaning people towards true random will cause unnecessary performance impact because the majority of cases don't need true random.
On another side, the impact of not using true random could cause a catastrophic result for a large number of people.
So which has more weight? I dunno.
In either case, it would be nice if developers knew the consequences of using either method, so this discussion is really more about education than anything else.
>the impact of not using true random could cause a catastrophic result for a large number of people.
And the impact of using 1000x slower trueRandom could cause catastrophic results for an even larger number of people, since by far PRNGs are used where speed is more important than security.
And once you pick a "true random", how true is it? Will it be secure in 10 years? Will we then need a "truerTrueRandom" to mitigate that true random has failed to pass future mathematical or hardware tests? Will it return random numbers fast enough for future uses?
It's a rabbit hole. Let developers use the one they need, and since the vast majority does not need secure random, don't force it on them at significant cost.
If your crypto developer cannot know which to use you're going to have a lot more holes in your crypto than the RNG.
I and GP comment seem to take the opposite stance: MFA is so important that products like this shouldn't offer a plan that doesn't include it. Either include it in your free plan or don't offer a free plan; don't make security an upsell.
It tells me that you didn't bother paying attention to the spellcheck in your writing tool, probably didn't take the time to carefully re-read a document for errors, and likely had no one else look at your resume for feedback.
None of those are things I'm looking for in an engineer on my team. I want an engineer who uses their tools to make their work more efficient, who pays attention to details, and believes feedback is a way to improve the quality of their work.
How many 9's do you expect out of my proof reader. Because that's what is happening at Google. It isn't that people aren't proof reading their CVs, it's that mistakes slip through sometimes, and if you're at Google, receiving thousands of CVs per day that 'sometimes' is all the time. But that doesn't mean you should expect 5 9s out of your candidaes.
It is kind of hilarious how often rent-seeking behavior is called out as evil when it comes to software companies, but actual rent-seeking with real estate is seen as virtuous investment.
