855 karma · joined November 5, 2016
To get an equivalent house you need to go further out to a less developed area with less people competing for the house, and there you will find cheaper houses.
I'm not saying it is sustainable or what the values should be etc, just that the past conditions != todays conditions despite it being the same latitude and longitude.
I wonder about the effects of acidification after long term use. Perhaps some alkaline filler can be added to balance.
Which is most orgs I've worked with.
The literal roof over the head is generally affordable - but having it in the location and standard people want is where it gets expensive.
However the desirable area and standard of housing is a want not a necessity. I want it too btw, same as everyone else!
The other thing I wonder, is if everyone is 'entitled' to a nice area and house, who pays for it all, and how do we fit everyone into the nicer areas?
If an investment house was a business, it often takes a decade to see substantial returns, sometimes after many years of hard slog and even losses. Would you accept that from the businesses that hacker news dreams of?
It's similar to saying that any digital representation of an image isn't an image just a dataset that represent it.
If what you said was any sort of defense every image copyright would never apply to any digital image, because the images can be saved in different resolutions, different file formats, or encoded down. e.g. if a jpeg 'image' was only an image at an exact set of digital bits i could save it again with a different quality setting and end up with a different set of digital bits.
But everyone still recognises when an image looks the same, and courts will uphold copyright claims regardless of the digital encoding of an image. So goodluck with that spurious argument that it's not copyright because 'its on the internet (oh its with AI etc).