81–90 of 147 posts
Yikes, I’d definitely bring a CO2 monitor with an alarm if I found myself sleeping in such a pod. I’m sure the ventilation can be handled correctly but I wouldn’t be blindly confident that the landlord was on top of it.
Still not a bad idea to monitor just in case
$23 a night, basically a discounted hostel bed
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crustaceans are very distantly related to "bugs," and don't taste remotely similar. While, funny, this correlation is not accurate.
>Crustaceans are very distantly related to "bugs," How do you figure? What makes them not a bug? Generally the distinction I see is that people consider pretty much all arthopods bugs unless they're big and live in the sea and cognitive dissonance doesn't want them to think about that they like eating bugs. Sure, they're not /insects/ but neither are spiders or centipedes. Heck, I think most people consider "Pill Bug…
>It’s comfortable enough for Lewis, who is 5 foot 9. (Lewis jokes that I should report that he’s an inch taller so that he can boast about it on the dating apps. I do not oblige.) I think something got lost in translation here. In SF online dating app culture, 5'10 is the minimum "not short" height. Note that it's specifically not considered "tall". Why 5'10? I don't know. How do I know this? Way too many overheard c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crustaceans are very distantly related to "bugs," and don't taste remotely similar. While, funny, this correlation is not accurate.
The correlation is very accurate. Lobsters were once considered so low-quality that they had to be force-fed to prisoners. Anyone complaining about "eating bugs" on principle is being foolish. If you don't like bugs for the taste, that's one thing (I've tried crickets before; they're unremarkable). But if anyone thinks that eating bugs is inherently any worse than eating, say, pigs, or octopuses, then that's simply i…
Maybe I’ll sound like the old out of touch rich guy (I’m 40 and won the startup lottery), but isn’t it great there is a way for people who are broke but have hustle to get their chance? When I was an intern at Goldman Sachs me and my roommate rented an apartment in the Tenderloin for $600 a month. I slept in the closet. We stayed at the office 24/7 and focused on work. My former roommate is now a GP at a major growth…
This is a red herring. Nobody is showing disdain for people who are forced to sleep in capsules for a chance at winning the lottery. It's profiting off pushing lottery-players to the brink that is coming across as problematic.
And another reply to your comment is justifying it for minimum-wage workers, who clearly don't even get a ticket.
Looking through this thread, it is surprising that there are actually people who consider this "acceptable". Like it is not something out of a dystopian hellscape. Amazing how much a person can be conditioned into accepting a terrible situation. And no, there are ways to fix this, there is just no will to do so, partly because of the people who see nothing wrong with it.
I think we need more options like this which reduce prices for people in expensive areas everywhere. Would you rather people be priced out? I’d rather have a bigger mix of people in any one metropolis.
If the housing situation in a place got so bad that a person has to pay nearly 1/3 of their monthly income just to get a closet to sleep in, it is not a livable place. A slum has a big mix of people but would you really consider it a great "metropolis" where you can have a life and raise a family?
Again, this is 1/3 of minimum wage for as much space as a closet. It is basically priced as high as it could to best exploit the poorest among us. Maybe it is a different in value between me and those who grew up in SF but I consider it inhumane to treat someone who is working full time like this. If you don't think so, let me ask you this: would you let your family, your spouse and your children, to live like this? In a box? Or would you do all you could to get them something better? Not everyone can do better than minimum wage, but it doesn't mean they deserve to live like this. That is what I mean.
There are solutions to the housing problem that is not this band aid on a festering wound. But it seems this kind of situation is perfectly fine to SF people. To which I have nothing else to say but amazement at how can a city priding itself on economic abundance and human right progress can also be utterly indifferent to the suffering of its fellows and even justifying it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crustaceans are very distantly related to "bugs," and don't taste remotely similar. While, funny, this correlation is not accurate.
How do you know? I was offered fried scorpions and grass hoopers once, but I was too chicken to try. My friends thought they taste normal, it sounds plausible at least.
Looking through this thread, it is surprising that there are actually people who consider this "acceptable". Like it is not something out of a dystopian hellscape. Amazing how much a person can be conditioned into accepting a terrible situation. And no, there are ways to fix this, there is just no will to do so, partly because of the people who see nothing wrong with it.
As temporary housing, it beats a tent. Maybe even a van. Are you against camping?
This is eye opening to me how the housing situation is viewed by the SF upper class. I have always considered it a dystopian nightmare when the workers have to sleep in a coffin and work full time. It seems not many people in SF share my view.
Looking through this thread, it is surprising that there are actually people who consider this "acceptable". Like it is not something out of a dystopian hellscape. Amazing how much a person can be conditioned into accepting a terrible situation. And no, there are ways to fix this, there is just no will to do so, partly because of the people who see nothing wrong with it.
I'm honestly confused about which part specifically you find unacceptable. Do you think it should be illegal to sell housing smaller than a certain minimum size? Do you think the price is too high? Do you think the location is awful?
A box is not a proper living condition. For a minimum wage worker, $700/month is basically at the limit of what they can afford for rent. And yet this is all they can get? And people are cheering for it?