CapstanRoller

It's climate change, not some piddly amount of barely radioactive water diluted to undetectable levels.

Hasn't the USA collectively decided that houses are a luxury good?

Forget "better internet" — many of us can barely afford any shelter, much less one that we can 'own'

The people creating that value get very little from ad revenue. Google keeps most of the money. This is why many creators are turning to Patreon, etc.

Won't using such third-party clients cause your account to get flagged?

Someone already beat you to it

https://hackaday.com/2023/02/21/youtube-as-infinite-file-sto...

When the basics become harder and harder to attain despite increasing abundance, people tend to either give up or revolt.

"Huh? What flooding?" asks the man comfortably lounging on a yacht, as millions of regular folks get swept away by the rushing water.

Sounds like survivorship bias.

All those events had an impact on someone. They destroyed many lives and set back countless others.

It can happen to you, unless you continue your lucky streak or your continued survival was/is due to wealth.

Wages may have risen on the low end, but it's really difficult to find a job in many professions and the pay has dropped substantially. My LinkedIn feed is full of unemployed engineers, recruiters, etc. Layoffs are also continuing, but are no longer big enough to make the news.

The "recruitinghell" subreddit highlights many of these problems.

Turns out those "foul jungles" are necessary for a healthy planetary biosphere. So much for manhood!

Do you still have one? Did you hack it?

OP is obviously concerned about poodle skirts

>I think the trigger that would bring people back to the office is a new economic boom based on new and unknown technology

The modern Internet, the WWW, Linux, etc. and most of the core infra as we know it (and take for granted) was built in the 90s by people worldwide largely communicating via IRC and mailing lists.

If that's not an example of new and unknown technology, then I don't know what is.

The Leaf is in a weird position, since Nissan keeps betting (incorrectly) on CHAdeMO even on the latest model Leaf

>a tiny home with 4 walls and a door with a 24/7 security guard

You are not describing any homeless shelter that I've ever seen. Usually they are very crowded communal sleeping facilities with barely any security and zero privacy. Theft and assault are a common occurrence.

They should've kept the original base-plate of prefabulated amulite. Too much profit-driven "optimization" IMHO

>Overspending

Money itself isn't real. Resources are.

>There’s plenty of free cash/food/shelter around for those who need it.

There's plenty, but very little is actually given to those who need it.

As a worker, ask yourself some questions: was HR hired to represent you, or to represent the corporation? Is HR part of your personal legal counsel team? Who signs HR's paychecks?

>does this sound like something a rational person would participate in?

The Almighty Mar-ket, with all its acolytes, always form a rational economic system, by definition!

>Reduce public spending

Austerity kills.

>If all goes well, perhaps in the future we'll be able to compare this transition to Chile under Pinochet

Pinochet was a fascist. Do you seriously feel okay endorsing his aims and goals?

>The micro-optimization of me using switching to electric stove does not register on any discernible metric

Switching from a gas stove? It absolutely does register, much more so in your household air quality but also it helps deprecate fossil fuel infrastructure which can have a big effect everywhere.

Gas infrastructure is notoriously leaky. A few houses switching away from gas stoves may not do much, but a neighborhood switching would cause a bunch of pipes to be shut off and emptied, reducing baseline direct methane emissions into the atmosphere, which have an outsize effect on climate change compared to the CO2 emitted by burning of the methane in a stove. First a household, then a neighborhood, then a town, etc. and eventually all those leaky pipes get shut off.

The long-tail effects of small optimizations like that can be surprisingly significant, rarely linear, and often non-obvious.

>I would argue the market did decide to support the Civil Rights movement and there was obvious benefit for minimal cost to most. Civil Rights was a bottom up movement.

Yes, it was definitely a bottom-up movement, resisted by the market and political establishment vehemently, until the cost of protest and other disruption made resistance no longer viable.

Similarly, big players in the fossil fuel industry are still fighting any attempts at change. We can work to hold them accountable via institutions while still trying to make small changes on a personal level.

>We put solar panels on our roof not because we love the environment or civilization or are worried about saving the planet but because it ultimately would save us money on utilities.

Who is "we"? There are plenty of people who make conscious choices to make the world a better place, because it feels good to help others and see a happier healthier society. This includes possibly futile personal choices like driving and flying less, consuming less, etc. Not everyone sees the world purely through such an economic lens.

Did the capitalist market incentivize the Civil Rights movement, for example?

Plenty of people who code get laid off. SDETS/automation QA engineers are software engineers, but aren't treated as such.

>Because that isn't an alternative. Rather it just strikes me as regular rural living in a small house.

It was more of a suggestion to do something quasi-legal like a multi-tenant tiny house village. I know a few folks who did this in the PNW, along with one who bought a disused kids' camp facility with small A-frame cabins and turned it into a permaculture farm & community, and then had all their friends move in.

You're right in that it's not an answer either, because it's essentially a tiny breakaway society.

Community doesn't mean much when it's primarily mediated by money. I suspect OP wants to escape capitalist society, not society overall.

>Find land, which there is plenty of in rural areas, and build a new small house?

Then you're just contributing to the sprawl problem, because infrastructure has to extend to you somehow.

The options are:

- bring all the infrastructure with you (be rich)

- do without (live in squalor)

The third option we need:

- small dense affordable housing

There is a massive need for degrowth. Carbon capture is a scam — the thermodynamics just don't make sense. It's far easier to not pollute the first place than to pollute and then expend even more energy trying to undo the damage.

The answer is less, not more: compact housing, compact communities, compact cities, efficient transit, etc.

The way we have built the world relies on assumptions about limitless resources, and in order to get through this problem we need to fundamentally reconsider how we approach using resources.

What can be done today:

- zoning reform (in the USA especially)

- investment in small dense housing

- investment in transit

What isn't going to help:

- Business As Usual (BAU) But "Green"

- Dumping more energy into the system

Nuclear reactors can be great, but they do not resolve the civilization-level energy waste problem.

This is due to zoning laws. Many people desperately want smaller housing, but it's effectively illegal everywhere in the USA. The only alternative is to buy rural land and try to get creative with the law (e.g. your tiny home on an existing rusted old trailer frame is considered a "remodel", etc) or simply build a small cabin and hope no one from the government comes to bulldoze it. Even success here means you're stuck far away from jobs, infrastructure, etc.

Existing small houses are priced as high (or higher) than new-build McMansions.

See also: "missing middle"

https://youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc