asokoloski

I think they try to stay pretty explicitly neutral about advocating a particular density, it's just that they want people to be realistic about how much a particular kind of development costs. Suburbs are perfectly fine -- but if they were taxed to a degree that reflects their actual infrastructure cost, it would be much more expensive to live in them. There's currently a bizarre pattern where poorer, older, higher-density urban neighborhoods end up subsidizing richer suburbs.

Likewise, it's fine if you want to live out on a farm well away from other people -- but the town shouldn't pay a million dollars to run a paved road and water supply out to your house, when a dirt road and a well is good enough.

The problem is that we all want something for nothing. We all want to live in low-density suburbs like you love, but since charging enough in taxes to pay for them would not be very politically popular, instead we've run up massive infrastructure liabilities, depending on unsustainable exponential growth for funding to fix the old infrastructure.

Would you still love the suburbs as much if your property taxes were 2x or 4x what they are now? If you would still want to live in a suburb, great, no problem. But many people would probably rather choose to move to a denser area and pay a more reasonable tax rate.

I had a similar reaction, after trying out Ansible at my last job. We ended up switching to fabric, which is all in Python. It was mostly good but had some awkward warts, which it seems that they've mostly addressed in fabric2. Anyway, it might be worth a look, based on my understanding of your use case.

For anyone who wants to know how they can help with this, personally: Citizens' Climate Lobby is a nonpartisan group that is trying to get a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend (The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, H.R. 763) through Congress. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ CCL promotes a measured approach, focused on this single task -- it's not about protesting or venting frustration. I personally think it's the most effective way to make a real difference.

And H.R. 763 has strong support of both climate scientists and economists as an effective way to reduce our emissions and mitigate climate change.

Seconded! Also, the criticism in this article about lack of diversity doesn't apply very much to Worm (and its sequel, Ward).

To give some examples -- one of the protagonists of Ward is gay, as are two of the antagonists. One of the protagonists is trans. One is black. Two are Hispanic. One of the side characters (a hero) is a recovering homophobe. Another side character is a white supremacist who's trying to turn over a new leaf.

One of the main villain groups in Worm are white supremacists -- and one of the heroes is a kid who leaves that life. Two of the protagonist villains (brother and sister) are black. There's a lesbian couple -- one a hero, one a rogue/villain. There's a character who I think would be called genderqueer? One of the protagonists is asexual.

It sounds like a lot, but there's a huge cast of characters, and it never felt tacked-on to me.

And so much of the story is about really, really traumatic stuff. It's really dark, sometimes horrifying, sometimes tragic, sometimes awesome, and overall really gripping. It's sort of ruined mainstream superhero media for me -- it seems so flat and predictable in comparison.

Highly recommended.

These stores have massive invisible subsidies in the form of tax breaks and infrastructure built to support them. That's a huge factor in how they're able to undercut local shops. The city is really footing the bill.

A local butcher shop takes up a tiny amount of area, and therefore a tiny amount of infrastructure. It pays way more in taxes than Wal-Mart, compared to the amount it costs the city to support.

This is a central part of the strong towns message, about why our towns and cities are all going broke: https://youtu.be/K0AZXUWr_Rg?t=3723

One can look at it from another perspective -- when Walmart comes to town, typically they'll receive a tax break, which is an unfair advantage over a local grocery store. They'll also typically get a massive investment in terms of newly built infrastructure -- roads all around the lot, pipes, electricity, etc, compared to a local grocery store.

When you compare the revenue the WalMart (or any big box store) brings in compared to the amount of space it takes up (with a massive parking lot), it's typically WAY less than a small neighborhood grocery store built in the older traditional style. It's only because towns and cities have effectively subsidized these big-box stores that they've taken over. They're really a terrible deal for municipal governments in terms of economic benefits.

In many places (such as Texas), people don't consider space to be valuable because it's so plentiful -- which is true in one sense. But it's not just space we care about, it's infrastructure-supported space. Space that has roads to access it, water pipes, electricity, police and fire services, etc. will ALWAYS be scarce. These resources are expensive, and the more spread-out things are, the more money we're forced to spend on infrastructure.

This is a good way to present the issue to anyone who identifies as a free-market capitalist. Free markets require a level playing field to work properly.

Oh, yeah. Prop 13 is like an order of magnitude worse than just taxing property + land vs a higher rate on land.

You're correct, but it's a completely different incentive. If you hold out and everyone around you improves their property, your taxes go up almost as much anyway! It punishes speculation and rewards productive use.

So a virtuous feedback cycle is created, where everyone is incentivized to improve and develop their property to the point where they're best taking advantage of the land it sits on -- or to sell it to someone who will.

I'm familiar with stamp duty -- it has a lot of problems, mainly around the fact that it discourages people from moving. It seems significantly worse than a land tax, to me.

Exactly. Taxing property encourages speculation and under-development.

Showing an alternative, Pennsylvania has several towns and cities with a split-rate tax, which means that there's a higher tax on the assessed land value than on the assessed value of the property. Taking this to an extreme, you can tax only the land value, not the property, providing a very strong incentive to make the best use of desirable land. A split rate tax just lets you turn the dial between typical property taxes and a land tax.

Many arguments in favor of the land value tax are based in concepts of economic rent and fairness. While I'm sympathetic to these arguments, I think the best argument is that it seems to work, both in theory and practice. Places that implement a split rate or land value tax tend to have fewer empty lots, parking lots, single-family homes in the middle of downtown, etc.

And not just that, but typical property taxes provide a disincentive to even improve your own property, since you'll pay more tax. They encourage blight.

It's not just California, it's everywhere. Tax policy isn't the only thing stopping us from avoiding sprawl by "thickening up" valuable areas of towns and cities, but it's a big one. Parking minimums are another, and of course zoning is yet another. All of them are important in terms of making our cities walkable, amenable to public transit, and sustainable environmentally.

*edit -- I should clarify that Prop-13 makes this effect worse in California than many places, though.

This is why I think H.R. 763 (in the US) is a well-designed bill. It taxes everything, and has a built-in tariff to serve as incentive to other countries to implement similar carbon taxes. I hope it passes. I believe it starts out at $15 per ton, then goes up by $10 per ton each year, with adjustments based on whether we're falling short of our greenhouse gas reduction goals, or greatly exceeding them.

There is a third way. Suburban single-family zones full of cul-de-sacs are designed to be metaphorically put under glass and never changed. Building massive towers, on the other hand, is very drastic and has the potential to destroy the character of a community.

I like the approach advocated by the Strong Towns movement: allow the next increment of development by right, everywhere. So a neighborhood of mostly single-family homes should allow accessory dwelling units (mother-in-law apartments) and conversion to duplexes by right. A neighborhood of duplexes should allow conversion to triplexes or quadplexes by right. A neighborhood of those should allow conversion to even denser development like townhomes, and multiplexes, etc. This allows a town or city to grow gradually and naturally.

The way they put it is, "No community should have to experience extreme change... but no community should be exempt from change". Wanting to build massive towers to address housing shortages is not ideal, but it's an understandable reaction, when it's illegal to address the shortage by having every neighborhood in the city "thicken up" a bit.

This is how the great cities we love all over the world became great -- through gradual, incremental change and intensification.

This is a common source of confusion, but carbohydrate intolerance is a symptom of diabetes, not a cause. Diabetics that go on Keto diets are still diabetic. If you give them a piece of toast, their blood sugar goes through the roof. It's like that joke about going to the doctor and saying "It hurts when I do this" and the doctor says "Well, don't do that anymore".

On the other hand, eating a whole-food plant based diet can actually reverse type 2 diabetes. People stabilize their blood sugar even while eating things like whole wheat bread, potatoes, rice and fruit, and generally have to have their insulin reduced and then eliminated to avoid hypoglycemia.

There is a theory gaining traction that insulin resistance is caused by fat in our muscle cells that somehow blocks the activity of insulin. So eating a very low-fat diet allows this fat to clear out, allowing insulin to work again, so you can eat carbs without your blood sugar spiking.

The fat in muscle cells is called "intramyocellular lipids". We know that it's associated with insulin resistance, the only debate is whether it's the cause or the effect, or if something else is causing both. Based on what I've read, I subscribe to the theory that it's the cause.

As an alternative, check out a whole-food plant based diet. Many foods in the standard American diet (junk food like chips and sweets, meat, dairy, eggs, oils, even fish) are generally very calorie-dense -- you don't have to eat much of them to be over-eating calories, and eating an appropriate amount doesn't fill you up.

If you switch to getting your calories from whole grains, beans and legumes, potatoes, rice (ideally brown rice), fruit, etc, and don't add fat or oil when you cook, you can eat until you're full and still not gain weight. Nuts and seeds are the only whole plant food you may have to watch out for a bit -- the oil in them makes them relatively high-calorie.

The downside to this diet is that you'll probably have to do a lot of the cooking yourself at home, because virtually all the prepared food you can buy has had oil of some sort added to it. You can buy some things like pasta sauce, but you have to pay close attention to the nutrition label and try to get ones with minimal added oil. It takes a little while to get used to it, but it soon becomes pretty intuitive.

And of course, cutting out dairy and meat means that you'll want to supplement B12.

The upside is that this diet has health benefits (based on research, not just anecdotes) that go way beyond weight loss, though. Reduced risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, reduced fatigue, less pain from inflammatory conditions, less anxiety, better digestion, etc.

Although, the anecdotes are generally impressive and fun to read, so if you want those: https://www.forksoverknives.com/success-stories/#gs.6onygn

One tactic that seems like it will be very effective is to call or write your congressperson to let them know that you support H.R. 763. The bill has support from economists and scientists alike. It's designed not just to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but to do it in a way that minimizes impact on the economy, and also provides an incentive for other countries to pass similar legislation (by imposing tariffs on imports from countries that don't).

I suppose the question is not whether these people are a completely accurate representation of the country as a whole, but whether they will effectively serve as a dampening factor on corporate lobbyists. We shouldn't compare them against an unreachable ideal, but ask if they'll be an improvement on what we have now. I think they probably will.

I posted a link elsewhere in the comments -- check out the Better Angels organization. I think they're really on to something. They teach people how to talk about politics in a way that leads to a respectful conversation and consideration of each others views rather than a screaming match.

I've just recently discovered it, but I'm a big fan of the work that Better Angels are doing to reduce political polarization in our society and help us communicate peacefully: https://www.better-angels.org/our-story/

I think it has a lot of potential to help with this problem.

Yep. In fact, in order to make it more meat-like, they added a chemical called "heme" (it's what makes meat seem "bloody"). There's evidence that heme is a carcinogen. And of course the burgers include large amounts of saturated fat in the form of coconut oil.

All that said -- it's probably no worse than a meat burger, but it doesn't hurt animals, and it doesn't contribute to global warming, so if the choice is between that and beef, go nuts!

Stick with it! A vegan diet like you're eating has benefits far beyond weight loss -- you're less likely to get heart disease, cancer, and a whole bunch of other chronic diseases than omnivores.

I'm a climate activist, and I can't control how others act, but I'm in favor of, like you say, anything that works.

The Citizens' Climate Lobby is focusing on a carbon fee and dividend. I'm new to the movement (so take what I say with a grain of salt) but I like what I see so far. We're very focused on one particular legislative approach, not because other things won't help, but because it's hard enough getting legislation like H.R. 763 through congress already, and distractions dilute our precious time and energy. So the CCL is pushing on just this one bill, which we think is the most effective approach for us.

But I'd love to see people work on everything and everything. I just think it's probably most effective for most organizations to focus on a relatively narrow area.

As far as I know, the most cost-effective method is very low tech--just find a good area and plant a variety of native trees.

To anyone reading who wants to know what they can personally do--in rough order of decreasing impact:

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ is doing really good work. They focus on a very non-adversarial approach, and are changing the minds of a lot of congresspeople about vital climate legislation. It's a very effective approach. Joining up with your local chapter and volunteering is a great way to spend your time and energy, if you have it.

A small thing anyone can do is sign up for https://projectgrandcanyon.com/ and call their congressperson once a month.

If you are willing to make a personal change, learn about veganism. You don't have to go completely vegan. It's great if you can, but if it's too scary, start with Meatless Monday and go from there. Rather than thinking about how to reduce meat, think about how to fill your diet with more meat-free options. Learn to make some tasty, filling vegetarian or vegan pastas, curries, and other recipes. Eat more starchy foods, whole grains, and beans.

If you can, and it suits you, move to a dense, walkable area of the city. This isn't possible or desirable for everyone, obviously.

This research simply says that the children of the age group studied are not hurt by screen time in one particular aspect -- mental health. To draw the conclusion that we should stop worrying about screen time because a single study failed to find an effect in this specific case is a bit of a leap.

I think there's a massive difference between screen time between the ages of 10 and 14, and screen time under the age of 5, when a child's brain is developing very rapidly. And what I worry about most is consequences like ADHD and decreased attention span.

We do require B12, but "found almost exclusively in animal foods" leaves out something important. B12 is produced by bacteria, and is found in natural, untreated water sources, as well as dirt. Our bodies are adapted to preserve B12 in a very elaborate way, (because it is a water-soluble vitamin), meaning that we can survive on the trace amounts found in untreated water and the dirt that sticks to vegetables. This is not to say that I'm recommending drinking untreated water or not washing vegetables. Vegans should absolutely supplement.

DHA can be produced by our bodies transforming ALA, which is found in plant sources: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016378271...

Like the article says, there's debate over whether this is enough, as the conversion is very inefficient. As I understand it, ALA and LA compete for the same pathway, meaning that excess of LA intake (an omega 6 fatty acid, abundant in nuts and seeds, and of course oils processed from them) will reduce our body's ability to produce DHA, so a human eating prehistoric diet would likely have a better conversion ratio than on a modern diet. Also, there's apparently evidence that if we don't eat a lot of DHA, our bodies convert more of our dietary ALA to it to compensate: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20861171

But even taking all this into consideration, I'm not very sympathetic to arguments from nature. There's a big difference between saying "primal humans did X" and saying "modurn humans need to do X to be healthy". Even taking everything you said as given, there's overwhelming evidence that meat consumption is a big factor in for modern chronic health problems like heart disease and cancer. Eating whatever you can get your hands on (meat, eggs, fish, insects) makes sense when you just need enough calories to survive and reproduce, but that's not the problem now. We suffer from diseases of abundance. A plant-based diet with B12 and DHA supplementation is much healthier than an omnivorous one.

Hmm, you know what, I've been researching this a bit more and it seems like I was wrong. Apparently many cultures did boil seeds to produce oils for cooking or other purposes. I expect that they probably didn't eat as much oil as we do, given that this would have been more labor intensive than what we can do with modern farming and factories. But it makes sense to try to get your calories any way you can.

It's more of a desire for oils than a need. Humans don't need to eat processed oils at all. We can get all the essential fatty acids we need from regular food -- even without eating fish. Oils are not even healthy, they're just concentrated calories. It's just that they taste good.

As far as for other uses of vegetable oils, I can't really comment.

Yes, there's a big difference between someone who rents out their apartment using Airbnb because they're away half the year, or has a spare room that they rent out, and someone who buys an entire building of 20 apartments and turns it into a hotel in all but name, skirting around all the consumer protections and regulations that have been put into place around hotels.

You can argue that the regulation of hotel-style Airbnb use is too lenient, or the regulation on real hotels is too onerous, but I don't know of any good argument that they should be treated differently.

Sorting this out would either lead to reduced demand for apartments to use with Airbnb as it becomes less attractive to large-scale landlords, or lead to greater demand of land for hotel usage.

Heh, you're talking about me.

Eggs: https://www.forksoverknives.com/whats-wrong-with-eggs/#gs.Sd...

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-choline-and-cancer/

Fish: https://www.forksoverknives.com/is-fish-a-health-food-or-hav...

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fis...

If it's a food you can't live without, having it once in a while on special occasions isn't going to hurt you much, just like smoking a cigarette a few times a year wouldn't hurt you much. You decide what's right for you. As far as I can tell, though, the science seems pretty clear that fish and eggs aren't health foods.

The simplest answer is, as much as you can, stick to a whole-foods, plant based diet. So:

Whole grain bread and pasta instead of white bread and pasta. Brown rice instead of white rice. Vegetables, vegetables, vegetables, and fruit. Beans, chickpeas, split peas, and lentils. Things to avoid: Meat, fish, dairy, eggs, OIL (of any sort), junk food (of course).

Whole foods mean foods where nothing bad has been added, and nothing good has been taken away.

This diet is scientifically proven to reduce inflammation, and in fact, make you live longer. The closer you can get to it, the better off you'll be. The only thing to be wary of is that if you cut out animal protein entirely, you'll need a vitamin B12 supplement, unless you get your water from natural streams and eat vegetables without washing off the dirt :) (B12 comes from bacteria -- that's where grazing animals get it from).

If you're interested in the science, here's a long (but good) talk by Dr. Michael Greger (creator of nutritionfacts.org) at google: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ

Note that he's different from most of the diet advocates out there in that he seems to try quite hard to remain focused on the science, his website is entirely free, he's not selling supplements, and all the proceeds of his books go to charity. I'm a big fan :)

Coconut oil is not a naturally occurring fat, unless you're eating it as part of a coconut. It's just as bad for you as other saturated fats (unfortunately, because it's super tasty): https://nutritionfacts.org/video/coconut-oil-and-the-boost-i...