Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#31

Post by calamari4065 »

k12sosse wrote: post #25
SllX wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah. Let's generously say that did happen and it works out for him at some indeterminate point in the future. Would you then consider the frozen and completely inactive head disconnected from a living body vital for sustaining the living processes of the head of Walt Disney still living in the present? If this thread is to be completely pedantic, we have to go all the way here.

Not living. But liveable. Not alive but not dead. Sort of pre- death, but post- life. How about: statically being

Dead until proven otherwise

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#32

Post by biztos »

SllX wrote: post #19
thatguy0900 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a popular rumor that he froze his head in anticipation of being revived in the future

Ah. Let's generously say that did happen and it works out for him at some indeterminate point in the future. Would you then consider the frozen and completely inactive head disconnected from a living body vital for sustaining the living processes of the head of Walt Disney still living in the present? If this thread is to be completely pedantic, we have to go all the way here.

I don’t think this question can be properly answered without asking someone thus revivified.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#33

Post by DiscourseFan »

bee_rider wrote: post #28
crooked-v wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California housing costs are a direct result of major California cities doing absolutely everything in their power to avoid building enough housing.

And also the fact that California is a very desirable place to live.

Sure but the residential parts of California, even in the nicer towns along the coast, don't really look very different from anywhere else in the US; lots of parking lots, plenty of underutilized space.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#34

Post by jimmaswell »

staticautomatic wrote: post #16
SllX wrote: post #3

Scotia, CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia,_California It is a “company town”, but it is not incorporated. You can also find a company town near you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns_in_the_U...

I’d add Sinclair, WY to that list. I stumbled upon it while driving cross country. It’s kinda surreal.

The Sinclair facility I saw at night full of hundreds of white lights was beautiful in an odd way, like a kind of Christmas tree.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#35

Post by theptip »

ls612 wrote: post #27
jeffbee wrote: post #7

There's a lot to be said for building little villages all over the north state to support the amount of forestry that needs doing these days, which is quite a bit. The state says it wants to do preventative cutting and burning on a million acres per year but so far has been doing something between .1% and 1% of that goal. There's no money in it, so the state would just have to pour in the funds. But that's no differe…

If they want to cut parts of the forest now and then as part of lifecycle management why not allow logging for profit?

Clearing out fuel/undergrowth is a very different activity than logging trees. No money in the former.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#36

Post by johnnyanmac »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #33
bee_rider wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also the fact that California is a very desirable place to live.

Sure but the residential parts of California, even in the nicer towns along the coast, don't really look very different from anywhere else in the US; lots of parking lots, plenty of underutilized space.

I mean, California is larger than some countries. There is plenty of space but we all know that that space isn't equally valued.

It's not just enough to be in an area with decent weather, you gotta be close to the hotspot hubs of SF/SD/LA. And that's where "shortages" start to come. Pareto principle at work.

Also coastland is a minority of land in CA. Go out to the east in So Cal and it's all burning hot desert, with infertile land. Go north towards central CA and it's 90% farmland more than anything (CA does produce a ton of food for the country). There's less land to work with even if you wanted to build out.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#37

Post by jancsika »

TheBlight wrote: post #29
varelse wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Doesn't almost all well water have these sorts of contaminants? I wouldn't expect it from a city water system but if drawing from a well I'd assume I'd need to independently filter.

If web users had to pay money for specialized 3rd-party plugins just to use CSS filters then everything would just get rendered server side.

Same logic applies to the physical space. Just throw a filter on the well side. That avoids shipping a bloated, unnecessary package to each and every client just to run water. :)

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#38

Post by cronix »

dhosek wrote: post #22
SllX wrote: post #3

Scotia, CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia,_California It is a “company town”, but it is not incorporated. You can also find a company town near you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns_in_the_U...

I was surprised from the list to learn that Gary, Indiana was originally owned by U.S. Steel.

And now US Steel is owned by Japan!

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#40

Post by o0-0o »

cronix wrote: post #38
dhosek wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was surprised from the list to learn that Gary, Indiana was originally owned by U.S. Steel.

And now US Steel is owned by Japan!

That's just incorrect information. There is a bid, which needs to go through a variety of functions to succeed. Also, it's not a bid by Japan. It's a bid by Nippon Steel. Just clearing up the hogwash here.
Post reply on HN