9,374 karma · joined March 23, 2011
But I'm skeptical that people would embrace it. It's more about the optics, and it also relates to the old principle of "Read the article -- don't start opining based only on the headline." Many would probably say that you shouldn't offer an opinion if you've only read an AI distillation.
It could be wrong - or more likely, the article acknowledges likely objections and refutes them well, but that part didn't make it into the summary, so everyone starts raising very un-insightful points as though the author was oblivious to them.
But given how good a job this seemed to do at giving me more than just headlines, I'd love to have maybe even just an audio podcast feed of the top 10 stories like this compiled a few times a day. I would listen while I'm doing things when reading isn't practical.
tl;dr agree that we don't need this to replace reading, but I see that it can be a useful tool.
I think the answer to this is because a tax increase is something they know every other landlord they’re competing with will be subject to as well. Raising it right now makes yours an oddly expensive apartment. Once the law passes though, even before implementation date, every landlord knows every other landlord will want to preserve the same cash flow they had before, by raising the rent by roughly the amount of the tax.
Unless of course you have mass vacancy rates already, and those rent raises would be more than the market can bear. But decent rentals in desirable cities have been in shortage for decades which is why rent steadily rises already. Even if your current tenants refuse to renew at a raised rent, someone else will come along, trading slightly down if necessary in terms of quality/amenities.
The second half made me think, "Wow, what a gross format. Really glad we have no use for these anymore!" (Not that they should leave the Explorer crash unfixed, of course).
It's bananas to me that a CD-ROM cost like $400 in 1990s money at one point; then I spent $150 on my first CD burner around 2002, and now you can buy a USB Blu-Ray/DVD/CD recorder drive for under $40.
Can you explain this? What is this and how does it replace a taillight?
> all these silly rules [tray tables and seat backs for instance, seat belts...]
Most of these rules are based in sound research, and were created to avoid repeats of things that exacerbated deadliness of previous air accidents. Calling them silly really makes one look like the sort of know-it-all who thinks that the whole aviation industry is dummies. Exactly the sort of person who bickers with FAs trying to inform you of the safety rules.
PS: I support the baby carriers myself. Argue it with the FAA, not with the FA on a plane.
This reads like you're saying "When [Good Party] were in charge, they would have always done the right thing, but now [Bad Party] is in charge so we need to handicap the government (perhaps only temporarily, until we get in charge again).
More compelling would be "Doesn't matter if it's a Bernie Sanders Socialists supermajority or a Trump MAGA government, the government shouldn't be allowed to have such-and-such power."
ehh, this part is a weak take. All universities should cancel their journal subscriptions because journal publishers are parasites. Lots of other things are done by universities in collaboration with each other, without allowing some random for-profit company to collect rents. Publications should be one of them.
Uh, you'd be surprised. Once you refuse, they are going to insist, and if you still refuse to comply, or they're going to return to the gate and have your ass removed. They don't pick and choose which rules to enforce.
And yes, they do enforce this rule. We experienced it all the time when my son was a baby.
Edit: such as amoss’s comment.
Like, a significant portion of the people who were involved in any screwups made in the 2000s -- especially the more senior people who should get most of the blame -- are now retired.
Make decisions based on today and on reality. Apple holding a grudge against Nvidia today, if true (as we have no proof that it factors in, of course), is downright childish.
The existence of property tax (which on a single house in some areas of the state is upwards of $15,000 a year already) already makes it absolutely ruinous to just sit on an extra house you don't need and not rent it out.
> or who don't make efficient use of land
A little more convincing. Though I suspect most empty land in places where anyone would be willing to live in California, is empty because our insane zoning laws don't allow what would otherwise make sense there (I don't care that it's like what most areas have -- it's insane to have laws that would make it illegal to build a place like San Francisco, Brooklyn, or Boston).
The funny thing about those zoning laws though is that they're held up by a rare case of bipartisanship:
- The MAGA Boomer set who doesn't want any more development near them because "it'll bring traffic" or noise or crime
- And most of the "progressives" who don't want any more development anywhere because "we hate greedy developers" and "Not enough of this proposed development is low-income housing for the government to dole out in lotteries to a few lucky families."
But I think the proposal being discussed is 1000% more consistent with the principles of a free, non-communist society than the crazy "wealth tax," which sets the precedent that if the government thinks you have "too much" stuff, they can just declare that to be so, and come and take it. Given that the people in charge of drawing the line between "so rich that we need to take your stuff" and "not that rich" will be the same people who have blown up the state budget, I don't see why anyone would trust them.
(No, I'm not Zuck's sock puppet account -- I expect it won't be my turn for "wealth" confiscation for at least 5 years, worst case.)
Demand for apartments will be constant. Supply of apartments will be constant.
But I think what's going on here is that we are way off the equilibrium point. The supply of good places to rent is far outpaced by demand for them, at most price points, and especially so where all the value is (on the coast). So, this means if you're a landlord and you know you'll owe another $1200 tax to Sacramento this year, you should be very confident that if you raise rent by $100 a month, even if an individual tenant would rather move than pay it, someone who can afford $100 more exists and will almost certainly fill that vacancy promptly. It may represent a slight step down in what their buying power would buy. Like, they may have rented a $3000 apartment before, and they'll now rent what used to be a $2900 apartment from you for $3000.
We can’t change the past anyway, but ‘considering SAML harmful’ today may be the most reasonable position to take.