pickovven

If only there was a way to reduce the return to landlords...

There's a difference between building housing and being a landlord.

It's absurd to frame this as some sort of luxury consumption decision. Sure, that might be true for like beach front properties but we're talking about virtually every major city in the country.

People grow up and have social connections in these places. There are jobs there. There are political reasons for moving. But most importantly these are cities, not suburbs. It's just wildly ridiculous to disallow dense housing which would allow more residents and lower housing prices.

Oh so you'll always sell your house for the same price you bought it for and never do anything wild like take out a home equity loan?

The current state of things are that most property rights are abolished. Why do all my neighbors get to decide if my property has 10 or 20 units on it?

Your point would be more compelling if people weren't specifically blocking additional housing so their investment appreciates.

Individual owners are also investors.

Do people think they're just reselling their houses for the price they bought them at?

I find articles like this - and the fact they make the front page of HN - pretty illustrative of how "misinformation" is nowhere close to our biggest media problem.

Misinformation is downstream from retrograde political views and basic historical literacy. The solution isn't a better media ecosystem. It's better social relations.

Not exactly the same, but emissions dropped pretty dramatically after the 2008 crash.

A decent outcome here would be if Glassdoor revealed all employers that attempt to go after former employees with alerts like the current one on the Zuru page.

You don't need zoning to control pollution.

Technology can definitely solve some political problems, at least in a very narrow sense. If you don't believe this, ask yourself what happened after the printing press was invented, or the steam engine.

That's not the same as saying technology will resolve social problems. And I personally think crypto is ridiculous. But knowing technology can completely reshape politics is still an important lesson.

When someone complains about politics infiltrating a space but is unwilling to name the specific politics, suggesting it's a general principle, they very likely have a problem with the specific politics. They see social costs in voicing that opinion, so they generalize it to some principle.

Hard to imagine a minor annoyance of logo design would otherwise justify a public post. Living in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society doesn't mean excluding politics from the public sphere. It means tolerating politics in the public sphere, especially if you're ambivalent or even a little annoyed by those politics.

In this example, if it's pride symbols or the Ukrainian flag, or something else -- those will stop being political once the rights are so normalized and obvious, they no longer elicit reactions like this.

In many places green roofs are primarily about reducing rainwater runoff, which causes pollution. However in hot areas like LA, they also reduce building temperatures which reduces energy consumption. Lawns don't reduce building temperatures.