HN user
Your only point is that the suggestion of the earth supporting 10bn people is akin to terrorism (which you later amended to "intellectual terrorism"), which I'd argue is objectively disingenuous... and completely pointless.
This conversation has reached the point of unproductive a while ago.
I'm sure you'll try to bait me back into it, because you fit that MO, but you're on your own.
I don't know if anyone's ever told you this, but you're being outwardly shitty when you have no reason to be. You're just throwing the word terrorism around disingenuously to get a rise out of people.
Please, describe to me how pointing out the inevitability of population increase is terrorism.
You don't need to weaponize "sorry" — just don't say it.
It doesn't make sense to jump to ad hominem attacks because someone's calling you out on a statement that seems completely irrelevant.
If you want to put the Panama Canal through Boston it's going to cost astronomically more than $24bn — the logistics (not to mention the requirements and processes of the time period) are entirely different.
If you don't live within the inner 1-2 city ring around Boston and you're not on the commuter rail, you have no choice but to drive.
Right, but how many people are driving who live within that ring? Just eliminating those commuters would likely solve the congestion issues...
It is because I didn't say it was "just fine" I said "can" as in "is possible" — which is objectively true.
...and even if I did say it was "just fine" it wouldn't be tantamount to terrorism because I was pointing out something that is very likely inevitable.
I'm not invoking 3 billion people by assuming one day they will exist.
I think catch-up sleep is just an excuse we grant ourselves for sleeping more on the weekends... we've been conditioned to feel bad for not feeling productive, so we need to grant ourselves special permission.
Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.
Calling it terrorism is a bit absurd.
It's totally possible (and even likely within our lifetimes), but that doesn't mean that there aren't huge logistical issues to overcome for it to be comfortable.
One of the main problems is that the world population is so widely distributed. We can already feed and house everyone, we already have more resources than what would be required... they're just not distributed appropriately (some due to hoarding, some due to supply chain barriers, political borders, etc).
People typically have fewer kids as their society develops. Average age in the developed world is almost double of places like Africa. There is some evidence that slowing or decline in population is a reasonable expectation.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Low estimates suggest a decline
Moderate estimates suggest a plateau
High estimates suggest constant increase
Time will tell, and estimates suggest that the earth can comfortably support ~10bn
---
I don't think housing prices have much to do with population increase, but more to do with urbanization (as well as increasing wage gaps).
People are flocking to existing cities, and the more center you are the higher prices are.
This pushes people to the outskirts, which become more urbanized, which spreads urbanization through the same cycle.
because the wealth gap keeps increasing and we need to do more about it
https://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/files/1515/2691/1827/ban...
Yes. Everything green here was once under a highway. It completelpely changed a major portion of the city and opened up routes for other parts of the city to become more developed.
I don't disagree. We should have a lot more streetcars and (everyone has their own priorities). Reducing traffic from the suburbs would be massive.
There's also a huge amount of inequality in Boston proper due to the removal of the elevated Orange Line (which is inadequately serviced by the Silver Line and other busses). The most used bus routes (which mostly serve Roxbury and Dorchester) should be converted.
Agree on the NH front too. I don't envy the people who commute from NH to Boston every day, but they should absolutely be tolled.
I think more radical traffic easing will need to happen eventually. Do we really need hundreds of thousands of people commuting in to sit in some cubicle downtown from 9-5? Shit no. I'm not sure what needs to happen there... reducing property taxes on business that shift their working hours or let their employees work from home X amount of days per week? I hate reducing corporate costs, but what else would convince them?
As well as paying for the burden of the corruption involved in Bostonian construction projects that (at least) doubled the cost of what it should have gone for
Is there evidence of this? Everyone says it but it always seems extreme (Seriously? $11bn to corruption?). I think there's credence to the fact that these projects often go to the lowest bidders, and in this instance there was a lot of rework done to compensate for cheap materials and poor workmanship.
you and your people compel others to bear the burden of your personal value choices
New Hampshire is an hour away if you don't want a tax-supported public infrastructure.
Can't speak for everyone, but the consensus here in Massachusetts feels like "I don't use the MBTA so I don't want to pay for it in taxes/tolls." (Surprise, we also have a massive congestion problem because our population increases 300% during the workweek).
It's the I got mine and fuck the rest mentality. People always ignore that infrastructure benefits everyone (and in this case public transit improvements are MASSIVE for the lower classes).
Sure, I absolutely think better accountability needs to be in place — but people didn't want the project at $8bn either.
People complained before ground was even broken. Looking at the scope of the project in retrospect, as well as the known unknowns, I'm surprised anyone thought it would cost $8bn ($22bn seems too high, but I'm just an interested layman).
The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. People were upset about this.
There were multiple problems along the way. It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion. People were also upset about this.
At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. They completely buried a highway that cut through the city, and added a ton of green space downtown (The Greenway).
The city is better for it. Taxpayers would never have allowed it if they had their way.
We need a similar program to revitalize the MBTA. It should be done regardless of the cost. I will happily pay more real estate taxes and highway tolls for the rest of my life to support it.
This type of propaganda is typically misleading in that the sources and claimed intents are flat out lies (Advertising is regulated against this too).
They're not saying "Russia wants you to vote for Trump" — they're doing things like sowing discontent and divisive rhetoric. The current propaganda efforts are absolutely fueling a lot of the divisiveness in the US right now. It's dangerous.
You think it would be a fair election if Xi Jinping could drop a trillion dollars in the US to advocate for his favorite candidate?
Naivety coupled with a positive attitude isn't going to change it either.
I'm saying if this is important to you, don't be complicit... because the current response to this isn't enough to stop it.
I agree with you. I wouldn't work there. All I'm saying is that people aren't making as big a deal of a deal as they should be if they want it to change.
I'm also saying that people who are saying this will hurt Google or make it hard for them to hire new people are flat-out wrong.
I don't think anyone's using that excuse to justify working for Google, I think they're just saying that a small number of people quitting Google isn't nearly enough to stop them.
Google employs at least 20k engineers. I'd be shocked if 100 quit over this news.
Google could be murdering kittens to cool servers with their blood and you could probably find enough competent engineers to keep 10 Google's fully staffed. The vast majority of people do not give two shits.
It's not big enough or fast to stop Google in China.
It's funny that you think that a foreign country can legally be sold ad space in the US for propaganda.
I understand where this comes from, but this line of reasoning tends to be very disingenuous.
I don't blame businesses for taxing advantage of our tax system (I would too), but I don't think they should be able to.
You can be an advocate for ending something while also taking advantage of it. There are a multitude of complicating factors and a business, just like a state, is going to prioritize itself before others (put your oxygen mask on first before assisting others).
This is highly political as well. These states already give more to the federal government than they take, and the states on the opposite end of the spectrum are also the states that fight against federal taxes entirely (which is some special form of irony).
This isn't a case where leading by example is going to inspire change (a billionaire voluntarily paying more taxes isn't going to either).
Leadership in Mississippi isn't going to look to California and say "wow they're really walking the walk" and start paying more federal tax.
You can extend this to just about anything if your goal is to be nothing but a total shitheel.
Do you believe in Democracy? Well guess where most of your computer components were manufactured! In countries without democracy. Guess you must hate freedom.
Do you think the US would be smart to denuclearize first to set an example for other countries? Would you die for that belief?
There are only about a dozen states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back — all of the states you're referencing are on that list. California specifically has been a donor state for more than 30 years.
I'm not sure how this is hoarding in any sense of the term. California is something like 40th when it comes to the ratio of federal assistance received to federal tax paid.
California is also in the top 15 states when it comes to tax paid per capita.
I guess if you wanted to complain you could pick on California's federal tax revenue ratio to Gross State Product — which is middle-of-the-road compared to other states. And even then, you're talking about 25 states that are worse off... and I think only 1 or 2 of those states are so-called "donor states."
If you're looking for personal biases... I don't even live in California. Outside of the weather I really kind of hate it there... but I'm having a really hard time finding any information to support your argument. I'd like to rag on California here... but if taxation is your primary concern then there are 30+ states that are larger priorities.
I'm not sure what your source is, or which numbers you're looking at specifically — but it feels like you're picking cherries to grind your axe.
I'm also curious about which state you think is setting the ideal example in this regard. If California is doing so poorly in your eyes... who is getting it right?
Seriously, there are open Safari bugs that have existed in Apple's system for 6+ years. At least slap a wontfix on there.
Woo! We need more capable bug bounty hunters. So many reports are very very very bad.
I mean you're shooting yourself in the foot HARD if you do this because then people start actually hacking you instead of reporting it.
The moon at its brightest is about 0.5 lux, and that's at its peak... once a month (waxes and wanes obviously).
Many nightlights I've tried are at least 0.5 lux depending on distance, but are often higher (1 lux or more)
Oh thank god hackaday redesigned
It already does, there are a couple hack fixes for Safari that force GPU rendering when it otherwise wouldn't.