Pipoca @ Pipoca @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

606

Joined

2 yr. ago

Israel isn't Judaism.

But if you take an old antisemetic trope and paper over the word "Jew" with "Israel" or "zionist", its still pretty antisemetic.

Antisemites can be anti-zionist or pro-zionist. Neither absolves them of their antisemitism.

What are you even talking about?

You originally said

Fuck the realestate industry period. It shouldn't be commodified to the point where there are more empty houses up for rent, airbnb, or sitting empty as "investments" than there are homeless.

Yes, there's more apartments sitting empty for a month or two than there are homeless people.

There are fewer apartments for rent sitting empty for a year or more than there are homeless people.

How exactly are you proposing that we fix the homelessness crisis with apartments sitting empty for a month?

Owner-occupied housing is great. The only person who brought it up before this was me, when I pointed out that some vacant homes are actually owner-occupied.

Why is having housing in flux a bad thing?

The goal should be to have affordable housing and low homeless rates.

Why should my goal be for each apartment to be moved into the day the previous occupant moves out? What's the point?

Do you think those houses would've gotten so run down if there was soneone living in them to see the need and do maintenance?

I don't think you understand that category of vacancies. Vacancies under repair isn't "long term vacant buildings that needs repairs to become livable again", its "any building currently being repaired or renovated that doesn't have people actively living in it".

My sister's house, for example, was vacant for a couple months when she renovated her kitchen. It was owner- occupied just before the renovation and just after, but it was vacant during the renovation because she temporarily moved in with my parents.

After natural disasters, there's often a lot of housing that's vacant under repair.

I used to do it more back in college where I'd ssh into the schools computers to work on assignments. It's still sometimes useful if you're in the console and want to edit something quickly.

However, there's e.g. macvim and gvim which are literally just vim in a gui; they give you menus and the ability to drag panes and click to move your cursor. With a decent LSP setup they can actually be pretty nice.

And most other decent editors have vim emulation of various quality levels. Emacs is a bit buggy, but it's really useful if you want to code in agda or clojure. And VS Code has fairly decent vim emulation.

Setting vim to alias to nano seems just about as chaotic evil as making the VS Code icon take you to notepad.

I dunno, those both seem pretty chaotic evil to me.

Even not being a vim wizard, editing code without vim keybindings feels... slow.

Yeah, I could grab the mouse, highlight everything between the arguments to a function and hit delete. Or I could just go to the open paren and just hit d%. I could grab the mouse, highlight the line and hit delete, or I could literally just type dd.

And trying to edit things in nano is positively masochistic.

No.

as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, ... Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, ... and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA.

That's not really anti-Israel.

Russia/Ukraine followed by Israel/Iran looks like it's suggesting Israel is in a proxy war with Iran. But the message there is about as clear as mud. I think he's saying we should be staying out of both Russia's war with Ukraine and Gaza? Maybe?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/brief-history-children-sent-through-mail-180959372/

The first case was an 8 month old baby being delivered to his grandparents a few miles away by the postal worker on his route.

A more extreme case was a 4 year old sent 73 miles; a cousin who was a clerk with the rail mail service apparently accompanied her.

Remember that not every unit the census counts as vacant can have someone move into it. Their definition is honestly kinda weird. Some units are under construction or repair. Some are legally tied up in a divorce or estate sale. Some actually have people in them, such as non-dormitory student housing or housing for seasonal workers.

According to the census, 14.5% of vacant units for rent are vacant for less than a month, and 20.6% are vacant for more than one month but less than 2. The median vacancy has been on the market for 3.7 months, and less than 20% of vacancies have been on the market for more than 1 year.

Having a lot of units on the market for a month or two is a good thing; it means people can move to an area and find housing. You're not going to house homeless people by sticking them into an apartment for a month or two between paying tenants.

It's also a good thing because low vacancy rates are associated with rents going up. And the rent being too damn high increases homelessness.

What's the point of that rethoric?

It's black humor.

He's pointing out that lots of people don't seem to have a problem with homeless people dying. They just have a problem with homeless people dying visibly in the streets instead of invisibly somewhere else. Or, even worse, actually addressing the causes of homelessness like building enough housing so the rent isn't too damn high.

"won't actually fix the housing issue" - I'm curious how a lot more availability will fail to drive prices down, which will at least help the housing issue.

The housing crisis is mostly due to not enough supply of housing.

Legislating short term rentals like airBnB helps some, but the real fix is just building a lot more housing. Letting neighborhoods densify from single family homes to row houses or small condominiums. Building more missing middle housing like duplexes and triplexes. Building 5 over 1s.

If prices haven't fallen, you haven't built enough units yet.

Because the stuff you hear about there being a ton of vacant housing is mostly due to the technical governmental definition of vacant housing not lining up with the colloquial.

Sure - blame Rockefeller, Henry Ford, etc. for that. Also e.g. Robert Moses, not that he was a billionaire. But they're all dead. They've been dead.

Is America's suburban sprawl the fault of Bill Gates in particular? Or Bezos, Musk, or Dell?

The statistic that "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions" is better understood as "Just 100 companies responsible for selling 71% of global fossil fuels". It's fundamentally saying that there's a few large coal, oil and gas companies worldwide selling us most of the supply.

If you want those companies to stop polluting, that amounts to those companies not selling fossil fuels.

Which is honestly the goal, but the only way to do that is to replace the demand for fossil fuels. Cutting the US off from fossil fuels would kill a ton of people if you didn't first make an energy grid 100% powered by renewables, got people to buy electric cars, cold climate heat pumps, etc.

Bullshit.

The investments of just 125 billionaires emit 393 million tonnes of CO2e each year – the equivalent of France – at an individual annual average that is a million times higher than someone in the bottom 90 percent of humanity.

That is to say, if you multiply the emissions of the gasoline sold by ExxonMobil by whatever percentage of ExxonMobile that's in Bill Gate's portfolio, you get an absolutely ridiculous emissions number.

But that seems to assume that if it weren't for those dastardly billionaires investing in oil companies, we'd all be living in 10-minute cities with incredible subways connected by high speed rail, powered entirely by renewables, and heated by geothermal heat pumps. And I honestly don't beleive that.

accident. Noun. something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone

It's partly about it being preventable, but mostly about it being expected.

The expected outcome of drunk driving or speeding through crosswalks is hitting someone. It's preventable by not driving drunk or not speeding.

A careful driver in the Netherlands killing a cyclist in a city center on a 20mph road is unexpected and fairly surprising - that would be a true accident. A drunk driver hitting someone on an American stroad is depressingly normal. It's hard to call it an accident.

Bush was a fighter pilot, though, in the 70s.

In order to get out of fighting in Vietnam, he joined the air national guard. Never flew a mission and ended up getting grounded because he didn't complete a physical on time in 1972.

Merriam Webster is a descriptive dictionary. They don't tell you how words "should" be used, they say how words are used.

Using literally as an intensifier goes back literal centuries. The earliest written citation we've found of that usage goes back to 1769. It can be found everywhere from Dickens to Brontë.

It's also hardly the first word to go on a similar path towards becoming an intensifier. Very originally meant "genuine", really meant "in fact", absolutely meant "completely", etc.

But who complains about sentences like "I was really bored to death", or "I was absolutely rooted to the ground"? Does saying "it's very cold" just mean "it is a genuine fact that it is cold"?

Literally still means what it means. You can't use literally to mean "yellow", for example. People aren't generally confused when they come across the word.

Colloquially, accidents are random events without intention or fault.

That's why there's a push to use neutral terms like "crash" that don't imply that the "accident" was just a random accidental mistake.

And fault is often a bit of a misnomer. Many crashes are the result of bad design, but the courts would never say "this pedestrian fatality here is 40% the fault of whichever insane engineer put the library parking lot across a 4-lane road from the library but refused to put a crosswalk there or implement any sort of traffic calming because that would inconvenience drivers".

The president can move public opinion, sure.

Yes the states run their own elections parallel to the feds, but that just means they pass 51ish laws instead of 1.

The federal government doesn't run any elections.

States run their own elections for federal offices. The only election run by the federal government is when the electoral college meets to elect a president, and that's usually just a formality.

The president can endorse a system and can probably tie federal funding to implementing it, but AFAIK can't force states to use it.

And I think you underestimate the amount that politics in the US is knee-jerk "we have to take the other side of this issue". There's a lot of everyday Republicans who oppose STV due to assorted FUD from right wing media.

that under STV they could pick their actual favorite AND a safe/tactical vote?

As an aside, STV doesn't let you do that. STV satisfies later-no-harm so it has to fail favorite betrayal. In other words, it guarantees that picking a second tactical vote can't harm your actual favorite, not that voting for your actual favorite is safe.

How? Look at the recent Alaskan special election for the House. If the final round were Begich vs Palin or Begich vs Peltola, Begich would win. However, Begich was eliminated first, so the final round was Palin vs Peltola, and Peltola won.

Palin voters would have been better off voting for Begich; voting for Palin first wasn't safe. Actually, they could have elected Begich if the exact right number of Palin voters stayed home (STV doesn't guarantee voting can't hurt you), or even voting Peltola (STV has odd corner cases where you can defeat someone by voting for them)