ryan_lane

Two adults with two children is doable with 2 beds. That's higher than the average number of children for a family in the US at this point. I know plenty of people with children (and I have children myself).

Airbnb probably serves you quite well, but you're a bit of a niche market for the travel industry, so it makes sense why your need isn't generally addressed. Hotels have to maximize their space, and the vast majority of people don't need kitchenettes.

> 180 oligarchs can launder their money in a 200'x200'

The vertical size of that, however, could be used to house at least a thousand (or more) people.

This is mostly a manhattan problem, but there's a quite large volume of the market there (due to the valuations) that are ultra-high-end, which tends to be vacant units used for money laundering. Same issue in a lot of the larger cities.

Luxury taxes (on both the sale, and ongoing yearly costs) can help reduce the problem as well as provide tax income for the cities. It's easily a win/win.

> Cities that have almost completely banned Airbnb (e.g.: NYC) have not seen any improvement on affordability. What's next?

New York, as expensive as it is, is still considerably cheaper than cities like SF. Part of this is that they build more, part of it is that they have a usable train system, which allows people to live more spread out across the city, but part of it as well, is that they've banned airbnb. It would be ideal to also see empty unit taxes on units >$10m (inflation adjusted). It would also be good to see high taxes on sales of units >$10m (inflation adjusted).

> Minimum contract length of 5 years.

This is good, assuming it's one sided (the tenant can choose to move out, but the landlord can't break the lease). People need stability in housing more than landlords need to be able to end leases.

> Maximum increase of rental per year regulated to 2/3% (even during high inflation years)

Sure, it should be generally tied to inflation, but what other investment exists where you're guaranteed yearly increases? Why are people so adamant that landlords need to be guaranteed minimal increases in their profits?

Housing is a natural monopoly, and allowing businesses to maximize their profits, unchecked, isn't capitalism.

> It can take years to evict a non-paying tenant. If there are children in the apartment, it's even harder.

This is often brought out as a massive negative of regulations, but let's be honest, this is an outlier. Without tenant protections, however, it's common for landlords to evict tenants to increase rents. Even with protections, landlords still take illegal measures to try to evict tenants to increase rents, like doing constant construction at night, or refusing to do maintenance.

This is basically the same complaint about welfare programs. We have to accept some percentage of fraud to serve the greater good.

It's completely normal for most businesses to take a risk based approach to fraud, to maximize profits. Retail businesses, for example, will try to maximize their credit card auth rates, even though that may increase their fraud rate, if the increases in auth rate outweigh the cost of the fraud.

A stable society is worth a small percentage of fraud.

> If the landlord is not a person but a company, regulation is even harder.

Good. I don't see how this is a downside.

> Maximum prices set by the local government, seasonal contracts banned, and even room rentals regulated.

Again, this is good. If there's a housing crunch, then residents should be prioritized over tourists.

Because the government builds that much housing, and subsidizes the cost, to ensure their citizens (and PRs) have affordable housing.

It's special because they made it that way.

The rest of the market was allowed to maximally increase rent to the point this person can't afford rent anywhere except for where they live, and the problem is rent control (which NYC has relatively little of)?

Why not complain about the high-rises full of empty apartments bought by oligarchs for money laundering? Why not complain about the tens of thousands of airbnb units?

NYC is actually quite good in terms of building supply, but the demand is also extremely high. Some of that demand is completely artificial due to money laundering and short-term rentals, and without fixing those issues, how can we expect people to live without limiting maximally increasing rents?

> There are often no hotel rooms with 3+ beds and kitchenette

There are very few hotels with kitchenettes. Most people don't cook (and don't want to cook) on vacation. Most hotels also don't cater to the low-income, and folks who cook on travel tend to be low-income. There's business rentals that offer this, but they're often not bookable for short-terms (usually 2+ weeks minimum).

Most hotels can accommodate 5+ people in a room, if you call them. Though no rooms (except suites) will have more than 2 beds, hotels will provide cots. In general, though, rooms aren't expected to host any more than that, and if you have more people than that, the expectation is that you'd book more than one room. Plenty of hotels have adjoining rooms for this purpose.

Again, though, hotels aren't really targeting low-income folks. Airbnbs can be cheaper in this regard, but most rentals on Airbnb charge by the person, so in some cases can be as expensive or more expensive than getting 2 rooms.

In either case, I think the issue is your needs are uncommon for vacation travel.

> What does this mean or are you just communist coding your speech?

What they were saying is simply common sense. If an airbnb host is buying a local unit and renting it out for high prices to tourists, they're going to buy it for a higher price than someone who's simply there to live, and that's stealing the opportunity for someone to live somewhere within their means.

You don't need to be a communist to understand that it's bad for everyone to prioritize entertainment travel over the ability to afford housing in the city that you live.

> There is a generic flaw in humanity that controversy brings popularity.

Not necessarily. You need to have that controversy shown to enough people of similar mindsets, which requires a platform, or for them to somehow grow their local audience, which was difficult for folks on the fringe to do in the past, but is easy now that social media promotes the fringe.

> So all you have to do is achieve perfect balance and censor only the bad things from both sides, right?

No. Regulate social media that drives views to these people. They're able to exist because social media uses algorithms based on engagement, and these people game the engagement system to slowly radicalize them. If you remove the pipeline, you also lower the popularity of these people.

Sure, some of this is word of mouth, but it's mostly not. Social media actively encouraging people to view this content.

> Because it's better to let every idiot flap their trap than to let anyone else decide who can't.

Yes, but free speech doesn't include the right to be platformed. Depending on the country, the definition of free speech also differs, and I have a feeling you're only considering this from the US point of view.

You should get yourself checked out. No one is trying to take your car away.

I have. A lot of them have trains!

You must be an American, because plenty of trains exist to bring people to nature elsewhere. You know, when you drive a car to a nature place, you put it into a parking lot, then you are no longer in the car, right? Same works for trains.

Sure, except that for the most part conservatives seem to be happy to watch their rights slide right down a hill when conservatives are in charge. See the entirety of US politics at this point.

Society already puts limits on children's access to media, their access to addictive substances, advertising that's allowed to be shown to them, etc. The internet, and especially social media, is a gap in the existing limits. This isn't a slippery slope, it's adding a missing set of compliance.

Social media is: media, addictive, shows unregulated advertising to them, is psychologically harmful, and their algorithms have been radicalizing them.

Regulation is absolutely needed here. I'd rather see tight regulation, rather than being blocked completely, but social media companies have been highly resistant to that. For example, they shouldn't be allowed to show advertising, they shouldn't be able to do tracking, they shouldn't be allowed to have an algorithm led feed, notifications should be mostly off by default (and any notification that is shown to primarily exist to make you open the app should be disallowed).

The problem with changes like that is that they destroy the network's engagement and remove their profit, and for the most part, it's changes adults would like to see as well. Making those changes for some countries laws would push other countries to introduce similar laws and not limit them to children.

It's a bad point though, because those are fringe and don't have network effects that would pressure most children to join them. You become a social outcast if you don't participate in <popular social media of the day>, but the kids participating on fringe sites are likely already outcasts.

We should be aiming to remove purposely addictive things from our children's lives, and all currently popular social media platforms are addiction machines.

You're putting Tate's views in an overly good light with the way you represent it. "traditional gender roles exist for a reason" is the very lightest possible way you can phrase his viewpoint.

He hates women, to the point of trafficking them. He's a predator and he spreads hate, and it reflects poorly on conservatives if they feel that represents their political views.

"YouTube is targeted because it shows children hate content, which happens to be a popular viewpoint of conservatives."

Fixed that for you.

What social networks are these? If they aren't complying with the law, they can (and should be) blocked.

You're also missing what folks keep saying: the network effect isn't there. It needs to be popular enough that there's social pressure to be there. If it's that large, it's going to be large enough to be on the radar and then be under enforcement.

Slippery-slope arguments, for the most part, exist to fear monger folks away from change, even when the argument itself is non-sensical.

Dollar stores are one of the primary drivers of food deserts. Info on this is a quick google search away, as there's a ton of research around this: https://anderson-review.ucla.edu/how-dollar-stores-contribut...

On particular items, yes. As a whole, no. They have a lot of loss leaders, then rely on being generally overpriced to make that up. Grocery stores also rely on this, but at a larger scale, and when their higher margins dry up, they go out of business.

Dollar stores target grocery stores margin products, to drive them out of business.

> Padding ties up capital, it reduces credibility, it delays deployment, it adds costs through delay.

Well done timelines are a negotiation between the stakeholders and engineers. The stakeholders need something done for the business, the engineers give a timeline. If that timeline works for everyone, great. If it doesn't, then the stakeholders will ask if it can be done in a faster time.

A timeline that lands on time, or early, is good. The point of timelines is that teams outside of engineering are resourcing their projects based on your timelines. They may have made outside commitments to customers, they may be lining up marketing, they may have embargoed PR, it may be delivered by someone at a conference, etc.

A project running late can be catastrophic. Bad customer relations, wasted marketing spend, pulling back stories from PR, delays for dependent teams, etc.

You pad to make sure your timelines aren't overly optimistic, because we're all bad at estimating, and it's possible our dependencies are too. By padding, when it comes time to negotiate for shorter timelines, you also have some wiggle room.

Bureaucratic environments tend to be larger companies and they care about schedule slips, because they have more teams being impacted, and those teams are handling larger numbers of overall projects. Schedule slips can lead to cascading failures.

But because these stores exist, they lead to grocery stores no longer existing, because they eat the majority of the profit from grocery stores. This forces people to shop at the dollar stores because it's the only thing nearby. The dollar store model increases prices, reduces consumer choice, and makes us less healthy.

You're applying that razor incorrectly. These dollar stores are run with a skeleton crew, where it's impossible for the workers to keep the store in order, or to update the prices on the shelves. The prices of items at the register is managed centrally. They ensure resources exist to increase prices at the register and not on the shelves, and that's misleading and fraudulent.

This isn't a pricing error. They should change their practices to require prices be updated on the shelves, and for that to be verified, prior to the prices at the register applying (and this should be required by law).

It's funny that it's criminal when someone shoplifts from a dollar store, but knowingly showing one price and charging a higher price isn't a crime. We need to start treating corporate theft as crimes, rather than as a cost of business.

> Another great point. In my experience, the very best language lessons are from casual interactions when a stranger makes a correction to my foreign language when replying me, but not in a derogatory manner. Most of the time, you can tell they are trying to be subtle and give you a helpful hint.

I disagree with this. I never want a stranger to give me a correction on my language skills. Unless they've been asked to help, they're being rude, even if they don't mean to be rude and even if they aren't being derogatory.

I go back to the point about "how would you feel if someone corrected your english pronunciation". Maybe they're doing it to be helpful. Maybe the rest of your pronunciation is pretty spot on, and they're helping you correct a single word. It's still embarrassing (and embarrassing someone is rude!). Maybe it isn't for you, but it is for most people.

I already have a teacher, and I've asked friends and family to correct me, but I don't want a stranger correcting me.

The particular example he used was poor. GPS coordinates along the way of a ride are meaningful for ridesharing, because you need to know the route the driver took along the entire route from start to end. You also need to know where the driver is prior to a ride being started because you need to match a driver to a passenger, and location matters a lot for that. You also probably want to know the route updates during a ride so that you can match the driver against more passengers mid-ride (either for carpooling, or for chained rides).

Ideally you'd use both the passenger and driver data to ensure the driver's client isn't misleading you, in case you're paying by time and distance, and also to ensure the passenger's safety (are they actually taking the passenger somewhere else?).

Local law may require you to have a particular granularity for time/distance calculations.

The article's point still generally stands, though. You need to decide for yourself what data you're sending, and the frequency of what you're sending, and you're using the raw data to do so. How you choose this should be based on business need, not directly from raw data being produced.

Other adults aren't your kids, and it isn't your place to correct them, unless they ask for help.

As a foreigner living in Japan, I'd like to take the opportunity to let you know that it's not ethnocentrism, but that Japan is for the most part quite xenophobic, and racist. It's common to hear Japanese folks make fun of other people's accents in what should be obviously extremely inappropriate settings, like at work, for example. The fact that you consider this ethnocentrism furthers the point that xenophobia and racism is commonplace, and that you feel that it's on foreigners to accept it.

If you're nitpicking a foreigner's accent pitch, think about how it would make you feel if they nitpicked your english pronunciation. My wife points out when I make mistakes in Japanese, but I ask her to do so. If a coworker or stranger were to do so, it would be embarrassing, and that's the difference that matters.

Referenced elsewhere in this post: https://www.unchainedatlast.org/united-states-child-marriage...

Let's err on the side that doesn't result in children being forced to marry pedophiles. Yes, the line can be subjective, but the vast majority of cases of child marriage are underage women being forced to marry men over the age of majority.

People not being able to marry at 17 doesn't stop them from waiting a year to be married. That isn't going to stop them from being patient, and won't stop them from having a child.

> There is not even a remotely plausible basis for describing anything written here as racist

The fact that plenty of people disagree with you doesn't support your argument.

It feels like you're being defensive here because you agree with his rhetoric and you don't want to consider yourself sexist or racist, because "that makes you a bad person". You can have racist, sexist thoughts, and maybe in other cases still generally be good in your actions. This doesn't define your core being, even if you still have hateful thoughts. You'll never be able to improve yourself if you're unwilling to have your beliefs challenged.

> This is completely unfounded assassination of character which does nothing except to reveal your own biases.

He's become a hero of the alt-right, specifically because his approach to this aligns with their playbook. It's not character assassination, it's truth. He's trying to phrase things in a palatable way, but his underlying message is that minorities and women don't belong in tech.

Though he said he doesn't support the alt-right, he went on a media tour after being fired, on alt-right platforms. This is also something that generally aligns with alt-right playbooks. Distance yourself in speech, but not in action.

> His questions did not carry any such implication and that is a blatant misrepresentation of the argument he was making.

I also read through this in-depth at the time, and yeah, he definitely did carry such implication. Hiding it through quoting bad science doesn't aid his cause.

He's a racist and a sexist, and he's just good at doing in a quasi-grey area, so that other racists can rally behind him. It's effectively the alt-right playbook, as the alt-right is just a "more commercially friendly KKK".

I wouldn't expect it to show up on their Wikipedia page, because Wikipedia has a high barrier for what they consider reliable information, and they wouldn't use email list postings, or personal accounts of behavior in what they'd include. This person isn't really relevant enough for his behavior to show up in the news.

But, the employees at the foundation, who are responsible for keeping the community healthy, and for enforcing policies, would absolutely take complaints, then use personal accounts, email list history, chat history, and such. It's effectively like how HR works.

> The only thing I've heard

Right, because you're talking to the wrong people, and you're ignoring the fact that he has had folks complain about his behavior, and you're also ignoring his email list and chat history, which you could go look at.

You're acting like this is some kind of witch hunt, when it's simply "HR" enforcing "employment handbook" standards. It just happens to be that this is a set of volunteers, rather than employees.