quantumBerry

>Energy is a zero sum game.

Only from the view of the universe, not from the view of humans. It cost less energy to drill for oil than the energy you get out of the gasoline. It takes less energy to create a solar panel than what you can get out of it. It takes less energy to labor at the factory for an hour than the energy you get from the 150KwH of power you can buy for your house from that hour of motion you performed at the factory.

If I use some electricity to run PoW on an electronic litecoin transaction from me to my friend in Kenya, that's a hell of a lot lower energy than building and operating a Western Union in Kenya isn't it?

Yes you can. Buy REIT ETFs. It's investing in real estate but with high liquidity and very low minimum investment.

Now apply your idea to dollars, and think about who prints the dollars.

Taxation is theft.

I've already stated the solution, it is the parent to which we are all responding:

>What we really should be asking is why is google examining user data at all. They should not be in the position where they can even find out who is a terrorist.

The solution I advocate for is they shouldn't be looking at our data. I don't want them evaluating who is a terrorist or who isn't, because as soon as they do that they need to take action on that information or be liable for failing to do so.

But I think you have found a very good solution with Sony, and maybe we should apply this to google and simply not use their service rather than get upset because they've chosen not to support those they think are terrorists. Again google is not your slave that must perform a service for you.

It's estimated 2 billion people use google. And in the US for instance, one third of the people here have records for criminal activity. Google doesn't have the manpower to call the police on millions of criminals actively using their services.

Intent matters. For instance, if a fed or informant asks to use your services and you think they are doing it for illegal purposes, such as terrorism, then you can be convicted (Even though the fed / informant never actually would have executed them, and it was a ruse to arrest you). If you come into my business, and I announce I believe you are engaging in terrorist activity, then the case is pretty much open and shut for my intent if I go on to support your ongoing concerns.

So if you're wrong, you merely didn't engage in commerce with someone you believe to be a terrorist. There's nothing wrong or illegal about that. The agreement for free services by google doesn't mean google can't end the service at any time, and I'd bet the boiler plate for any paid service has a pressure release valve to end the service if google merely suspects you of engaging in illegal activity. In short, Google owes you nothing, and they're not your slave to provide you service despite believing you're a criminal.

>they should not in any way be without liability for wrongly suspending a user's account just because their automated system unjustifiably "flagged" them.

A legal team of 1,000+ at google is betting that you're wrong. I have a feeling they came to a pretty logical decision that liability of aiding someone flagged of terrorist activity is greater than liability of shutting down someone to whom you owe nothing.

The rules don't require the person holding the content to scan the content. Normally a DMCA claim is issued before the host has to get involved.

Lets say you and I opened a joint safe deposit box at the bank to share USB drives together with movies on it. If the bank found out, they wouldn't be required to drill it open and scan the drive to make sure none of the movies were copyrighted. This is google drilling open the safe deposit box because someone shared the keys, and they think there may be a movie they don't like there.

And in the meantime before a human can check it, you think google will be completely without liability if they flag someone as a terrorist but let them continue on with their business, even aiding them with all of google services?

The entities that authored or authorized the system to identify the content as such are the persons that "think" so, because they wrote the definitions that identified him as such. You don't get to just make a system and totally disclaim all liability for what happens with it. If the people at google run the system, then they own what happens. In this case, they own the fact that they identified suspected terroristic activity and they should be held responsible if they don't stop it, at least until it can be reviewed.

Terrorism should not just be dealt with through the courts. If you think someone is committing violence against others your responsibility is to shut down all support of that person, you mustn't aid them in any way. There's no requirement that private entities wait for the courts before stopping commerce with suspected terrorists. If you are google, that means completely locking out all accounts that you identify as involved in terrorism.

The supreme court has held that when making statements of public concern, you haven't committed libel if you are acting without malice. It's pretty clear google wasn't acting with malice here, and that it is a great public concern if someone is actually amassing armored vehicles to use against others. And just because someone is a terrorist, doesn't mean you should or can act through the courts. If google believes someone is acting against non-US nationals in a foreign country, then there's very little the US courts could pragmatically do about it other than order entities in the US not to support them. Of course if evidence did emerge that google flagged that terrorist activity was happening, and they continued supporting that activity, I don't think that would look favorably during any prosecution.

Which, yet again, brings me to my original point, which is that google shouldn't even be putting themselves in the position to scan private data and open themselves up to the liability of having invade privacy and to suspect someone is engaging in crimes.

Agreed. Intent is important.

Unfortunately, google clearly has stated they think terroristic acts are happening. Once you indicate that you believe a counterparty is engaging in terrorist acts, you mustn't support them. Quite a few people have gone for prison for a very long time because a fed or informant who had zero interest in actually carrying out a terrorist act, made someone believe they were. And all the prosecutor needs to show is that Google _thought_ they were aiding someone making terroristic acts, and the prison sentences could be lengthy.

Remember the legal system doesn't have much room for nuance when it comes to criminal conspiracy. Even if somebody else gives you all the tools to do something horrible and eggs you on to do it, you are responsible if you make any act whatsoever towards what you believe will have that end, even if the person egging you on is actually a fed who knows all along the act isn't meant to ever happen and in fact you were only presented with the idea that an act could happen on false pretense so you could be tricked into going to jail.

And this brings me back to my original thought, which is that google is pretty dumb for even putting themselves in the position where they have a very dumb system for deciding if they're dealing with terrorist material. Because it opens them up to huge liability that they wouldn't have had if they simply allow their users to exist in privacy.

We're not talking about harrassment, we're talking about google thinking this is a violent terrorist who is sharing pictures of their armored vehicles.

Can you really say with a straight face that once google thinks they have a terrorist, they should just go on supporting that person in any way whatsoever? There can be very serious penalties for knowingly aiding terroristic acts (even if it turns out it was say a "harmless" fed or informant instead of an actual terrorist).

Terrorism is usually only defined by your allegiance, yes. In this case google is a US company so in the case they know violent islamic extremists use their platform, their allegiance is with the Americans, even if it happens to be the Americans blow up innocent Arabs and the extremists may just be engaging in self defense.

So you think if google really thinks you're a terrorist that they are obliged to go on supporting you? There's a big difference between having no idea terrorists use your platform, and actually supporting them by enabling those you believe to be terrorists.

A better analogy would be if you made terroristic remarks to the sporting goods clerk, and walmart banned you not just from sporting goods but the entire store. Gmail and Google Drive are just different departments of the same place.

But in this case it's just that walmart zoomed in on your notebook with a security camera, saw some arabic scribbles about allah on a tank drawing you were sharing with your friend, and decided you were a terrorist. Sure, they absolutely should toss you out the store if they think you are one, but they shouldn't have been zooming in your notebook in the first place.

If google really thinks he is a terrorist, which apparently they did, why on earth would they allow him to use gmail or android? It makes sense they would lock him out of everything possible.

What we really should be asking is why is google examining user data at all. They should not be in the position where they can even find out who is a terrorist.

There's a sweet spot where the risk is significant compared to not smoking, but average compared to the rest of the things in your life like riding a motorcycle. It's probably less than a few cigarettes a day but a lot more than a pipe full a month. Unfortunately the "not even once" crowd and compulsive addicts normally dominate the conversation.

Yes I have been to actual shanty towns including in a very poor latin american country and the middle east. I don't know why people here have such a hard on for there being something wrong with the people in trailer homes and shanty towns. They seemed like people who were just in different housing than some of the rest of us to me and I'm very glad their shanty town / trailer was available to them, because otherwise they'd be completely without shelter.

1) is no barrier at all to a residence. Maybe 30x30ft is all you need at most for a small family sized structure.

2) Is only a barrier in rural areas, otherwise hauling in water into a tank is still a lot better than being homeless / having all your wealth extracted by a landlord.

3) is merely an artificial restriction created by the government. We shouldn't be restricting property owners from building a residence.

4) If you're already ok with living far from anything you can already find a few counties in the US with virtually unrestricted building codes and zoning, so this is a non issue.

I have found some land that only suffers from (1) and (2) and (4), that is close to a city, and has no building codes in a western state. It's been a long haul getting there because there are so few places in the US that allows it, and this is the only county in the country next to jobs I've been able to find it. Believe me, I understand, and truly lament how much we hate for people to freely build their homes here. We'll probably move there within the next 5 years, but it would have been a hell of a lot easier if everywhere was like that so I didn't have to slowly acquire jobs and contacts closer and closer to the one area like this. And now that I've _finally_ acquired the contacts in this area, and a job reasonably close, and my partner has obtained all the credentials to work in the area, they are talking about closing off the option of self certification of meeting code here! So we will be back to square one. This is how people get locked out of every owning a home, because frankly my family can scarcely afford to even rent a badly run down home in a bad part of town where we live currently.

You watch property prices rise and rise, the number of places allow bypassing codes dwindle. And then some asshole comes around saying "Well the codes and zoning are there to keep you safe!" What about all the years lost working to buy that "safe" house? It's better to risk a 1/20 death in a horrible house fire than it is the certainty I'll lose 1/10th of my life completely if I slave away to buy a slightly safer house. And these people also don't seem to realize I have an incentive to not kill myself or anyone else, code or no code.

The negative impact of zoning requirements don't negate the negative impact of building codes, they just add more fuel to the fire. However zoning requirements are far less egregious; you wouldn't put a daycare next to a massive toxic waste handling plant. Comparing that to me building a tin shack isn't even in the same ballpark, and I think pretty disingenuous.

>Building codes typically cover things like fire protection, means of egress, ventilation, sanitary plumbing requirements, etc.

Yes these things are all should be tossed out. If I'm a 60 pound midget I don't need the same means of egress as you; if I haul in water I may not need plumbing at all and maybe I only clean out the cat litter box with the water that is plumbed in . Maybe I don't cook inside the house; that reduces the risk of fire by half so maybe my risk of fire looks as good or better than my up to code neighbor who has a standard up to code house but cooks with grease all day, falls asleep with a cigarette in their mouth, and leaves their lighters out for their toddler to play with. These are all neat requirements "in the name of safety" that could of course save lives, but at the expense of massive loss of life for people working years (lost life) and possible homelessness to avoid the insane requirements. If my option is to absolutely slave away for 7 years to buy a house to code, or build my own shack in one year, then the opportunity cost is about 1/12th of a life lost to build the house. Is there a 1/12 chance somebody is gonna die in my tin shack? Remember I'm still criminally negligible if they do, there isn't some gotcha that you get to do something that kills someone else because the code doesn't mention it.

Outhouses and portajohns are what appear when the alternative is public urination/defecation. If the poor are zoned and coded out of a home, they're going to be urinating and deficating in your park rather than in an outhouse, sound better? Visit San Francisco to see the excellent results! By the way, the city has installed long term portajohns in a number of high density cities. I've seen them in Minneapolis and Seattle, as well as absolutely permanent ones in a certain city in Ohio.

Please explain how the people in these shanty towns would be better off if the only house they can afford (a shack) is demolished for failure to meet code and they end up homeless. You paint a perfect picture of people who would be ruined by our building codes.

Does the trailer park get to overrule local building codes? Will I dislike them because they're poor or because people who live in trailers are just bad people?

Great, will I be able to register my kid for public school there after doing so? I'll put the yurt down as my primary residence; I hear Berkeley has good public schools. If so give me their contact information and I will take a serious look at getting set up.

I'm not arguing against the progression of housing. I'm arguing to be able to build a house I can afford on land I own. Building codes serve to lock property owners out of the means to actually live on their own property. And even if these high rises become more legalized, it's a long time from that happening and institutional investors and large construction and architecture firms executing and them finally being sold, in the meantime I have to live somewhere. It's also worth noting condos are a depreciating asset, unlike land, and you are beholden to the covenants and agreements of the condo including maintenance and other mandatory assessments.

I know some guy in Manhattan is going to tell me "but it cost 0.5M for a 1000 sq ft plot here, and only 0.4M for a condo" Which may be correct, but for the many of us living in lower density cities that still have tons of jobs like Kansas City, Dallas, or Omaha there's still a huge delta between the value of a small plot of land + 10k to build yurt/cabin and the price of a condo. That reflects the economic efficiency of the owner built small structure vs the condo in these areas.

Living out in the sticks has the same economic problem as you either have to be rich, retired, or score a very rare lucrative job to come out ahead. The economic cost is as high or higher than the new high-rise condo, it's just hidden behind opportunity cost.

I really challenge you to find the percent of population living in an area where raw land enough for a small structure is more expensive than a condo. It's a very small percent.

The cheapest land on which you could build a yurt or small cabin (illegally) in Berkeley I found on realtor is 60k (it is pending sale). The cheapest house is well north of 200k. You could build your own yurt or cabin for only 10 grand. You're joking yourself if that isn't very cheap by comparison.

[1] https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/55-Panoram...

Raw land is cheap. Housing codes are what keep people like myself out of the housing market. If I could just dump a yurt on the land, or a cabin like our forefathers, then housing prices would be a total non issue. But a bunch of selfish NIMBYs are so scared of the poors building a yurt instead of a 2000 sq ft brick house for two people and a dog, they'll never allow it.

I don't follow. The total wealth inside country starts out here:

value of house + value of rest of economy.

Now someone foreign comes into the country to live there and work in tech from abroad. They buy a house. Now the wealth inside the country looks like this:

value of house + foreign money paid for house + value of rest of country.

You can see that the wealth inside the country has increased. If it is the middle class owning those houses, then the wealth of middle class has changed by the difference in value between the value of the house and what it was sold for. The middle class then further benefits from whatever money the foreign worker spends in the country, which is a net gain for the middle class, plus the injection into the economy of the foreign money paid for the house. The only way the middle class end up worse off here is if the foreigner doesn't live and work here, and is just a foreign landlord (siphoning money out of the country) -- which is something I think we can both agree is detrimental.

I will say here in the US people have a lot of problems with foreign landlords and people who buy property here and don't live here. But only the most backwards rednecks have serious issue with an honest foreigner who buys a normal middle class house to live their lives, especially if they are injecting foreign capital into our economy.

You just said the middle class was the competition for these houses. If the middle class are the ones who own these houses it follows they are the ones selling them. You seem upset you were caught up in your fallacious logic and fail to understand it's the middle class making the money off these sales.

> it would however hurt the middle class since

If the middle class are the ones buying the properties, then they're the ones selling them. Therefore it actually injects money into the middle class, foreign capital that never existed in that country.

>he most touristic areas are profiting a lot from all that foreign tourist money, but a lot of the locals can't afford to live there anymore as all that tourist money

Those who move to a country to work and live there on anything but a very short term basis on not generally considered tourists. Most of the money flowing into the rich is a function of capitalism, not just tourism. You can examine virtually any industry and make the same statement. Yet, some fraction of money is usually better than nothing for the middle class people benefitting.

The US has your Austrian analogue, it is called Hawaii. In Hawaii most money is made from tourism. The common person there is mostly employed in tourism. Housing prices are high, because lots of people want to live there. The result when it was mostly closed off for coronavirus was that although demand for housing decreased, unemployment skyrocketed without tourism, making the middle class worse off.