HN user
Norwegian Air does not serve free food on transcontinental flights. Fine by me, I'm comfortable surviving 12 hours without eating hot food, in fact I do it almost every day.
"Probability of death conditional on an accident" sounds like a statistic designed to fool people who really just care about the probability of death, preying on a cognitive error.
These issues can be addressed, but in any case they don't seem related to restrictions that limit construction to a certain number of stories.
We know how to safe six-story buildings in SF are a solved prblem, and developers have no problem following building codes when zoning allows them to build 6 stories.
Cities are expensive for a reason - they are not just a Veblen good like a Mercedes AMG, mainly valuable due to scarcity. Cities are more like doctors - they are extremely useful, and we would all be better off if there were enough to go around.
Throughout US history there have been economically booming areas where people could move to become more prosperous. The majority of good new jobs are in cities. The fact that we are not building enough housing and transit infrastructure so people can actually live somewhere while working those jobs is a problem for national employment and economic growth. The landlords end up taking home a great share of the economic benefit instead of the workers as the price for scarce housing is bid up. This is also the root cause of gentrification.
This leads to megacommutes as people occupy housing further and further from the booming economy. That's clearly the case in the Bay Area, where many cities have built more units of office space than housing, guaranteeing a rough commute for the people who work in those buildings.
How on earth did a leak of DNC emails, but no corresponding RNC leak, help people figure out the lesser of two evils or provide a level playing field?
Seems obvious that leaks assisting the pro-Putin candidate were not altruistic.
Please show me the math on how you are going to give everyone a pension greater than the GDP per capita by changing tax law.
These pensions are higher than the GDP per capita. If everyone got pensions that big, where would the money come from?
Yes, but it still doesn't affect the (rational) landowner's decision. Imagine an improvement that can net the owner $Y a year in profit. A rational owner should always make that improvement, regardless of whether the government is also taxing them $X a year on the land.
It's not just about whether return is positive, it's about the highest ROI considering opportunity cost.
Consider a simple case where two lots with one story of development each can produce as much as a single lot with two stories of development. With a tax on land+improvements, a landlord does not prefer one over the other. With a tax on land value only, the single lot with two stories is preferred.
If they doesn't have the money/capital to do so, they should sell the land to someone else.
Indeed. If the neighbors have ten stories of development, a landlord with a one-story building will not be able to afford the LVT and will sell to someone who can afford to build ten stories.
The original statement "They vast majority of poor in SF grew up there or in nearby areas, they didn't migrate there like the economic elite have." is simply not supported by this evidence.
Given historical population growth of California, I think it's not a winning argument. Very few of California's residents have moral ground to live here at the exclusion of others. Pretty much everyone moved here. The only way forward is to allow enough homes to be built for everyone who wants to live here.
The number of people in the area is greater than the number of homes. No amount of income redistribution can possibly fix this. If you rent a room for a homeless person, you are just going to price out the poorest person who can currently afford a room. The only way to fix this is remove people or build homes. The first option is better for the landed gentry, the second option is better for the nation as a whole.
I don't see any data about where people are from in that link. Just where they lived most recently. A good way to become homeless is to move into an unstable housing situation in a far away place with high rents.
Perhaps they didn't like the results then they just took the average, and spent some effort turning the formula and parameters to get their favored ordering.
Can the AMA prevent hospitals from creating residencies with their own funds? I'm ignorant about this, but at first blush it seems like doctors must be a top expense and most companies enjoy employing workers with cheap wages and long hours. Hospitals should be happy to hire as many residents as possible (even if they got 60 hours from them instead of 100). What am I missing?
Utilization has no lasting effect on your credit score - if you have 100% utilization one month and pay it off next month, your credit score will be the same as if your utilization was 0% the whole time. It doesn't matter for building credit in the long term.
The rule sounds absurd on its own, but makes perfect sense when you read the example.
It's my impression that gross profit includes marginal costs, but not overhead.
I can't speak for the author, but every SaaS company I have been involved with had marginal costs such as customer support. When you are a tiny company and these tasks are performed by founders you could perhaps roll these costs into overhead and claim 100% gross profit. But as a growing company it would become clear that you need to hire someone for every X customers.
Uber is roughly breaking even in the US: https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/california/2016...
Anyone hoping Uber is going to run out of VC money and lose favor after being forced to raise prices in cities where it is already popular is going to be sorely disappointed. Uber is profitable in those cities. The more plausible failure scenario is that it doesn't succeed in new markets and therefore ends up being worth less than its current valuation.
Taxis suck in a lot of places. It takes then forever to show up when you call, if they show up at all. Very inconvenient for eg. making your way to the commuter rail station in the suburbs.
Google pays substantially more than that - matching that number does not put you at the top of the market. Companies paying that much include many of the largest tech employers in the area. Compensation for job switchers has been increasing rapidly since the no-poaching ring was busted, but you have to know to ask for it. Lots of people are anchored from that period and don't know what they are missing.
Can you provide a more clear link to evidence of your claim that Yglesias deleted 3000 tweets about Obamacare? I see images of a few tweets deleted. Perhaps Twitter is showing us different messages below the message you directly linked.
There is an episode of Song Exploder with the composer: http://songexploder.net/arrival
How would self-driving detract from fossil fuels? It should increase total demand for fuel.
So that study is their business model?
What is "psychological arbitrage"?
This is a good thing. But I'm not celebrating over Airbnb's corpse or whatever. The first order effects of Airbnb are great.
It's a good thing to increase the number of travel accommodations so more people can explore the world. I like Airbnb's mission better than that of a lot of Silicon Valley startups.
It's unfortunate that, at scale, Airbnb becomes part of a larger problem: there is not enough housing in many major cities. This is an unforced error we are making as a civilization, because we have the technology to easily provide enough housing in an affordable way (elevators, concrete).
Due to the limited supply of housing, the price will be bid up by the most economically efficient use - shoving a stream of daily renters through your condo building's lobby at the highest rate possible. A better outcome would be new facilities dedicated for this use case.
When the pie is not big enough, we are inevitably going to have a lot of tough fights over how to break it up. In this case, the poor locals who can't afford a place to rent and richer locals who are annoyed by the foreigners in their condo building lobby are going to win out over the people who want to explore the world.
Hey, isn't it nice that annual and monthly leases both exist, so you are the parent commenter's strongly held preferences are both met? This has been my experience in the US anyway.
Even in drought, California has a lot of water. Imported water is only necessary so long as we irrigate the central valley. We wouldn't need it just for residential use.
I think an independent California would have a good relationship with Mexico. Though I'm interested in why you think we wouldn't.
Point is, the US needs to consume the food more than we need to grow it. The water is not that great a threat.
They stop giving us water, we stop giving them food. Agriculture is 2% of the state GDP, 20% of the US food supply, and 80% of state water use.