You have misread the room if you think you can boast "impressive partial destruction" of buildings when the ENTIRETY of Gaza has just been made unlivable in front of your eyes.
They are not only not caring about minimizing harm, they are getting away with 11 months of wanton destruction on a daily basis. Just this month, they have dropped mk84 bombs on civilian tents. What are you babbling about?
Right afterwards, you can learn about the place called Haiti. Or Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or heck, Mexico. Oh, Vietnam. North-Korea. China. Japan. Wait until you learn about Chile. And do not forget to look up the meaning of 'Jakarta is coming'
BTW, before someone screams whataboutism: adjusting your worldview according to facts and applying your moral standards to all countries is not whataboutism. Its a prerequisite to being able to morally condemn any action.
Oh wow, a country BULLYING its neighbors. Imagine a country doing that. Luckily, the US never does something like that. Or imposes sanctions on a country half a world away, sanctions which the entire world has to adhere to unless they want to lose US trading all together.
Some of these talking points fall apart upon typing them, let alone posting.
Obviously this idea is dumb, but I'm concerned that it's the only realistic way to expand housing in the bay. The bay is currently short a solid million housing units, as far as I can tell there currently is no solution to this problem. All the areas that have already been developed are politically captured by NIMBYs that refuse to allow housing to densify. A giant conglomerate coming in and just throwing up a ton of housing on currently uninhabited land is imo the only solution other than the state or feds just unilaterally ending SFH zoning which I don't see happening.
Would not SB9 (or some recent law whose name I forget) allow lot more housing to be built? Not tomorrow but surely over the next 10 years. And then there are so many condos coming up near BART etc. We may be a million short, but I think dynamics start changing with every 100K, so as long as enough people start moving towards ADUs, and 4 houses in place of 1, it will start moving the needle.
A lot of time it is a question of cost, and a lot of times it is a question of cheap property taxes. Remove those blockers and it may make things move faster.
In India, a lot of "builders", come in and offer to rebuild your house for free as long as they can get 1 floor for themselves. Same can happen here - rebuild a house to break it in 4 units, and the builder keeps one for themselves (to sell). Maybe with the higher cost, they keep half to see - I do not know, but you just need a few dozen people to show this initiative before it becomes a bandwagon.
On the property tax, we already have some incentives for people to move elsewhere and keep the low tax rate. I wish we could also apply a floor to the property taxes - yes you have had 2% max raise this past 30 years, but if you are in the bottom 10% (decile?), sorry but we will raise 5% going forward until you are not in the bottom 10%. Slow and steady, but see the incentives change over a decade or 2.
>>Whats the point of being a billionare if you cant even build your own city?
Are you even hearing yourself?
Cities existed before billionares did. Society existed before pricks with god complexes started thinking that order and society organized the other way around.
It’s not God complex. Society doesn’t come into existence by itself in hunter-gathering time. It starts off with someone self-identifying as the chief/shaman and who is socially approved.
Starting a small settlement / community is not a small feat. It requires lots of organizing top-level-down. And then fast forwards million of years later we have religions and government and we start paying taxes without asking lots of questions while also taking everything for granted.
Religions and governments were considered a progressive thing 2000 years ago. But then gradually in the past 100 years we started to see disentanglement between these two. And now we are here.
And now we are starting enter the aeon of AI. Now it is good time to fix many real-world problems.
So you think cities and villages just magically got built because people would come together and interact like some kind of brownian motion?
I already laid down my arguments from an anthropological perspective. There was something very special about the past 2000~4000 years (since the beginning of stone age 3 million year ago, and anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago) and that is why at the year 2024AD, things have progressed into the current state. (Or why have we not progressed faster as a civilization/species?)
It's about cost and the sustaining of people's attention and work. Even for communities that started so to speak "organically", they would have dependency on some form of leadership at some points, if not throughout, or it would not be self-sustainable and grow to scale up e.g. into a village/city.
There are a lot of assertions in your post. Again, take an anthro class or at least read about the origin of cities.
Hell, we don’t even know if all the early ones were inhabitated year round. Nor do we know if many of the early cities required “leadership” in any real way.
Also, there may be more ways to measure “progress” than you’re aware of. Depending on the metric you choose… we may not be doing as well as you’d think.
You’re asserting things about the formation of cities that aren’t just unknown or mysterious, you’re asserting things that are patently untrue, then upset when someone calls you out for it lol. How Reddit is that?
You’re saying, “cities require strong leadership, planning, cost, and sustaining people’s attention, and work.” (To roughly paraphrase). I’m saying, “that’s not necessarily true, we don’t know enough about this to assert this. You should read some more about it or take an anthropology class.”
This is a highly technical subject, it’s just not one about computers or math or physics. Like, for some early cities we are unsure if they were even inhabited year round, for some cities it appears that there was absolutely no leadership. Maybe megalopolises requires strong central authority but I’m not so sure.
Even if you spend $8b and start your own version of Fordlandia you still may not succeed at building utopia because how do you maintain things how “you want them” when people like me exist who will try to flaunt your rules? Violence?
At this point it sounds like I'm talking to gpt3.5 with the system prompt as "angry troll on the internet". Won't be surprised if I am.
If you are not a chatbot, here is my advice after reading this incoherent thing you wrote: go work on something to make the change you want to see in your life.
It saddens me that discussions on HN are now turning into dumpster fire like this.
You aren’t entitled to have people agree with you on the internet - especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re just making wild claims about society.
I disagree with you, but sure “I’m a chat bot.” This conversation saddens you? Lol, ok. That clearly elevates the discourse.
With all due respect: he seems to lack basic empathy and understanding for most office workers.
When you have the viewpoint of the maverick freegunning CEO/main architect, and you have a direct stake at what you do, of course you can switch the tasks up to make everything fresh. After all, no one is going to control you in any way whatsoever.
That does not go for anyone with a well-defined set of responsibilities,placed, say, in an "agile" environment. And besides, working above and beyond your means there just means you get more and more tasks in exchange, nothing else. Yaay?
