Related: https://www.bensouthwood.co.uk/p/eight-architecture-myths-bu...
Modernist builds aren't really cheaper.
2,056 karma · joined March 29, 2017
Modernist builds aren't really cheaper.
https://www.chalmermagne.com/about
I don't see the link with Chalmers. I know Wiblin is.
Not over burying the waste, as mentioned in the article. And, it has the added externality of using more energy... leading to more pollution.
You're reflecting the populist notion that wealth is zero-sum. If that were true we'd still be in caves fighting over sticks. The average quality of life has skyrocketed in the last century alongside growth, and there's no non-capitalist country now or in history that's been an enviable place for average people to live.
You're still confused about what neoliberalism is. It really is just "vibes" to progressives apparently.
It's not their job to prevent companies from selling products that are a bit shittier in some fashion. Buy from a competitor.
I know you must not be confusing enshittification and monopoly, so why the attempted switch? At any rate, we're not dealing with monopolies, but competition can be reinforced through policy and anti-trust is still being wielded, more recently against Google.
> Mobile devices and their respective walled gardens if you expect to do something as simple as access your own bank account or reliably receive text messages
This is a EU phenomenon, and it's a product of EU-wide payment-security regulation, in particular PSD2's Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) rules. Banks found apps cheaper than SMS and card readers, and registered phones offer a layer of fraud protection. There are other incentives.
You're lumping this as "enshittified" but given what this does, average people would not agree. People who dislike this move are more privacy obsessed, or techies who dislike the app ecosystem. Ultimately if consumers en-masse cared enough about this to push a grassroots effort through, it would change, but they do not.
> Social media which only really works when lots of people are on any given platform
vbulletin forums and online communities have been around long before the popular iterants today. HN itself is an online community. It can work whether there are more or fewer.
People tend to tolerate more for high-traffic sites, but not infinitely so. Digg died many years ago, and now reddit's numbers are plummeting. FB's traffic is just old people.
> Food that is safe, nutritious, and sustainable
Lmao we've never had it better for food, in terms of choice and access. Pesticides are also safer than ever.
Notwithstanding staples and cheap healthy foods like legumes, there are novel products on the shelves all the time, including "sustainable" offerings. For instance consumers have enthusiastically adopted "milk alternatives" despite not reporting themselves to be vegetarian.
Yeah, at the advent of the industrial revolution. And prior to that 80% of people had to work the land, with no ammonia, just horses and manure.
Labor conditions from over a century ago, before the laws were written, have no bearing on whether wealthy people would try their best to kill you "just because". That's nonsensical.
"Nice" has nothing to do with it.
Incidentally, among the most effective remedies for what ails us now, like zoning reform, would be derided as "neoliberal" by progressives, though the evidence speaks for itself, and YIMBYs are making in-roads.
That doesn't mean that state capacity doesn't have it's place. We historically would spend more on innovation, on NASA, DARPA and the like, and that matters a great deal. But it doesn't preclude removing red tape that hinders govt and private sector efforts.
> a great deal of issues
Ok, name some. Realistically, there aren't many.
State the connection, because it seems like your next argument is going to be "the government didn't stop them", as though that's their job.
> Increasingly, we don't:
Think of a single enshittified product that matters to you for which there is no alternative but to use it.
This also all pales in contrast to the conveniences and improvements afforded over time. You can now access and stream basically any music you want for free, for example. Television sets are now commodities, which tend to be cheaper adjusted for inflation. Etc etc. So the rhetoric about enshittification doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Also, dynastic wealth itself doesn't sustain itself well, and dwindles in a generation. See: the aforementioned Rockefeller, whose grandchildren are nowhere near as rich. Notwithstanding that many of the wealthy (in particular, Bill Gates) are donating the majority of their wealth when they die.
> do you really think they want poor people hanging around?
Which by your rationale would include everyone who isn't rich (and tautologically would mean "no one is rich anymore"). They do not care whether we're hanging around, the same way they do not care now whether poor people exist. It has no bearing. All that does is whether they remain rich and powerful, and last I checked, that's relative. Being the only one left on the planet won't make you feel rich, and there being poors on a piece of land won't have any bearing on you.
> When we can be wiped out in a few months?
Lol
Also, on the population front, growth is poised to completely stall in less than 100 years. The fertility rate is terrible in developed countries, and falling quickly in developing ones as they get richer
Higher concentration of wealth is not new, it's happened many times and dissipated many times. Real-wages are still growing, which is what we care about qua improvements in our well being (and what attracts immigrants). The key risk though is regulatory capture from consolidation of tech companies (much of this "wealth" in question is stock valuation, which tends to get reinvested in companies), but anti-trust is still a thing, and has been wielded relatively recently.
> enshitification
This is about consumer products, not government policy. Buy an alternative, you have those choices.
> widespread hatred of ones neighbor over fake outrage culture war propaganda disseminated from corporate media
Based on polling, the most salient issues seem to reflect economic anxieties. Even stances on immigration are really about that.
When the established parties and institutions fail, people lash out and elect populists. The populist fervor will wane once housing affordability is appropriately tackled for instance.
> not a trends of improvement
Yeah, not everything improved in the short-run, that isn't remarkable. Many things did. Look at real-wages, look at the extreme poverty rate globally as defined by the UN. I could go on.
Ultimately people will remain enterprising status-seekers. Rich people can already sit around with their wealth doing fuck-all excepting consuming, and they don't.
Large parties represent large coalitions, so there are more compromises and things happen slower, but they still happen. Not always for the better, as we're seeing when populists are elected.
edit: "the other eliminates people". Lol, for this to make any rational sense, it would have to impact a significant segment of the population, and it simply does not. Even as covid goes, the most vulnerable were over 60 years old.
Software hiring rate has rebounded this year. Even those most impacted aren't looking very "obsolete" yet. But leaving the uncertain future aside, this idea that being economically unproductive means the wealthy would want to "purge" you is for the birds, it doesn't make sense. Especially in a post-scarcity situation, keeping people alive is cheap.
Consumers is how rich people get rich in the first place, if no one's buying then they're in stasis as though everything is zero-sum (incidentally, how populists think) and innovation no longer matters. They already don't have to work, they already could just idly sit on a pile of cash, but human nature is such that we still care about status signalling and making impacts, which depends on other people being around.