51–60 of 95 posts
I love this HTML.* If only all the web could follow this simple way to convey information. CONTENT. Heck, that's what makes HN interesting. It's the lack of web developer fluff. Just text. CONTENT. *But why the reference to tags.js? Javascript is not used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No- healthcare is an investment with a negative interest rate, ie you can only try to maintain your capital if you keep investing more and more - with a diminishing return since it ends in death anyway (with the current technology) In this specific case, a better investment strategy is to put the money where you will get the most of it, i.e. on the health of people still young, and reduce the investment as the people…
I don't know about the economic soundness of the argument, but it is so cold hearted that I would immediately emigrate from any country where this was the driving force behind government policy.
I've been on both sides of public project hearings, representing proponents who want to build or expand a project, and project opponents who want to block or reduce the expansion of a project. NIMBYism is very real, from folks who may just oppose a project on principle unrelated to actual negative effects (I see this a lot on transit projects from folks who are just opposed to public transportation) to folks who may…
Trial by jury works pretty well. Instead of a public hearing by interested parties, a random bunch of citizens could be tasked with reviewing the process, with a skilled arbitrator (like a judge) ensuring submissions by special interest group are done in a fair way.
I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph. Instead of spending money policing main streets, I support draconian camera-driven enforcement on side streets. Make unmarked google-maps-like cars with high quality cameras and software. Park it on streets and watch for traffic. Send tickets remotely to speeders (equivalent to running a red lig…
I will only support this when we are all required to use self-driven cars that can go twice the normal speed limit safely :)
Consideration for (unexpected) pedestrians (children etc) and cyclists seems to the primary motivation for low speed limits on residential side streets. I think that makes sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, I live at the bottom of a hill, 100ft from a traffic light. A new development opened up at the top of the hill, and now SUVs barrel down the hill at >50mph, see the green light, and accelerate . The speed limit is 25mph. So when I hear about communities in Palo Alto "viscously" blocking traffic, I wonder if perhaps they are simply attempting to return traffic levels that were present when they boug…
Perfect example of NIMBY-ism. You bought a house at the bottom of a hill. You got a price that likely had this negative quality priced in, because cars drive fast downhill. Now, you act like people just started driving fast downhill in the last few years, and that this problem needs to be resolved immediately to suit you.
When should it be resolved?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, I live at the bottom of a hill, 100ft from a traffic light. A new development opened up at the top of the hill, and now SUVs barrel down the hill at >50mph, see the green light, and accelerate . The speed limit is 25mph. So when I hear about communities in Palo Alto "viscously" blocking traffic, I wonder if perhaps they are simply attempting to return traffic levels that were present when they boug…
Perfect example of NIMBY-ism. You bought a house at the bottom of a hill. You got a price that likely had this negative quality priced in, because cars drive fast downhill. Now, you act like people just started driving fast downhill in the last few years, and that this problem needs to be resolved immediately to suit you.
Now, there is another route, along a major roadway, with a higher speed limit and more lanes. But its not a direct route and is 0.8 miles longer. I doubt that the quality of life of this new community would be severely impacted if they were "encouraged" to take this existing route.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perfect example of NIMBY-ism. You bought a house at the bottom of a hill. You got a price that likely had this negative quality priced in, because cars drive fast downhill. Now, you act like people just started driving fast downhill in the last few years, and that this problem needs to be resolved immediately to suit you.
So, according to you, the problem of drivers regularly doing 50 mph in a 25 mph zone need not be resolved "immediately"? When should it be resolved?
It's definitely the case that most drivers gain a bit of speed going down a hill, but it's been that way forever and it's not something you're going to change. So if one of your main concerns is the speed of traffic outside, don't buy a house at the bottom of a freaking hill.
Cars are the epitomy of an externality and are inherently anti-community and anti-commons. A vehicle that can move at 20mph to 70+ mph and comes in contact with human beings (as opposed to being segregated from them by barriers or being buried underground like a train) can only ever be detrimental to the commons. Everyone with a car wants it to move slowly around their own neighborhood and fast through everyone else's.
High house prices are a moral and economic disaster, as the post-2008 recession has shown us. The problem at the root of NIMBY is that real estate prices and behaviors have a few positive-feedback loops: 1. Because real estate "always goes up", and because Americans are delusional in general and seem to have a housing fetish, people have the deluded belief that they aren't paying for housing but investing in somethin…
In southern California, many of the highest priced areas have seen property values literally fall by half. I know many other such areas around the country have been similarly affected by the housing collapse, though I haven't seen any data measuring just top-end properties.
High house prices are a moral and economic disaster, as the post-2008 recession has shown us. The problem at the root of NIMBY is that real estate prices and behaviors have a few positive-feedback loops: 1. Because real estate "always goes up", and because Americans are delusional in general and seem to have a housing fetish, people have the deluded belief that they aren't paying for housing but investing in somethin…
I'm also curious why you claim that "'star' locations have barely dipped (yet)." In southern California, many of the highest priced areas have seen property values literally fall by half. I know many other such areas around the country have been similarly affected by the housing collapse, though I haven't seen any data measuring just top-end properties.
My theory is that this is an artifact of the damage done to job markets everywhere else by the recession. The few places where the job market remains strong are seeing rents hold ground or even increase, on account of what is effectively supply destruction of an extremely inelastic good.