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

Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 180 posts

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#161

Post by krainboltgreene »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #160
humanistbot wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your position is indeed unpopular. Everything changes. The population keeps growing. Without development, there isn't enough space for all the kids of all the people you grew up with to stay in Point Reyes and have kids of their own. Also, you don't just live in some random rural town. You live on the most scenic highway in the state, at the exit to a massively popular national seashore, in a major metropolitan area…

At some point the population has to stop growing. There’s not an infinite amount of everything (water, arable land, etc.) If you treat the world like it’s an all you can eat buffet, eventually we’ll be eating faster than the world can fill replenish the buffet, and something else will probably break before we get to that point.

Those things are concerning in the same way that with database design you have to be concerned that bigint columns have a maximum value.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#162

Post by amusedcyclist »

crhulls wrote: post #101

I'll share an unpopular opinion, loosely in defense of some elements of NIMBYism. I grew up in a small Marin County town called Point Reyes. It had 350 residents when I grew up, now maybe 1,000. The main reason people live there is to feel remote and rural. It is a way of life. Given the proximity to San Francisco, the real estate prices have skyrocketed. Almost all my blue collar friends have had to move. It is sad…

But there is actually right and wrong in this. If there were no consequences to NIMBY-ish no one would care, but the truth is from a house price and climate standpoint, we can't afford NIMBY-ism. I'm a homeowner in a pretty nice part of a large North American city and while I enjoy some aspects of my life, i think the current state of the world makes NIMBY-ism an objectively incorrect position. More people need to be able to afford to live in cities so that we can have more efficient , less carbon intensive lives on average.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#163

Post by devoutsalsa »

krainboltgreene wrote: post #161
devoutsalsa wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point the population has to stop growing. There’s not an infinite amount of everything (water, arable land, etc.) If you treat the world like it’s an all you can eat buffet, eventually we’ll be eating faster than the world can fill replenish the buffet, and something else will probably break before we get to that point.

Those things are concerning in the same way that with database design you have to be concerned that bigint columns have a maximum value.

Good thing Elon is helping up get a multi-master setup going. Latency will be a pain though.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#164

Post by [deleted] »

2143 wrote: post #147
mistrial9 wrote: post #7

A college town that was filled with ordinary college commotion is largely silent day and night. The streets of Berkeley, California near campus are empty for more than a year now. University Avenue, a major road leading to campus is quiet day and night, it used to be filled with cars, music and daily activity. Half of restaurants and most retail have closed in the last two years; parties are hidden due to covid-19. W…

> UC Berkeley continues to bring in nine-figure money with off-shore students paying high tuition, looking for their chance to strike it rich in the high tech scene, while those of ordinary means are economically crushed. First of all, it's definitely much less than 9 figures. UC Berkeley is one of the top schools not just in America, but in the world. Of course the brightest minds of the world would want to go there…

[deleted]

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#165

Post by ciphol »

Abekkus wrote: post #122
mperham wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what it does is force development thru sprawl which decimates wild lands. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards.

Cities don't need to grow far upwards if they just throw out cars. 3-5 floors are plenty

Very little of California is 3-5 floors, it's mostly 1-2. This "environmental" law is preventing the construction of 3-5 floor buildings.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#166

Post by ciphol »

mbg721 wrote: post #86
genocidicbunny wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your average NIMBY doesn't want _any_ change. They want their neighborhoods to be preserved exactly the way they are without anything changing. Higher property values is just a mask to hide the less palatable message of 'I want to ossify my neighborhood'.

Another way to frame that is "I'm heavily personally invested in this neighborhood, and I don't want all the things that I love about it to be lost." Change for change's sake isn't necessarily good.

It's not change for change's sake, it's change to provide housing and schooling and so on for a growing population.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#167

Post by dolni »

jimbokun wrote: post #115
dolni wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. That's an overly-simplified, idealistic view. Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. Our courts should help serve as a last line of defense against that, when appropriate.

That just becomes a dictatorship of the judiciary, who often times cannot be voted out.

There are checks and balances in place for a reason.

Remember that (at least in the US) the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. Both the executive and legislative branches have a ton of power in deciding how law is created and applied.

Lastly, judges usually can't be voted out at the federal level, but there are often local elections for judges.

Congress has the ability to remove judges that are problematic.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#168

Post by maerF0x0 »

dolni wrote: post #68
maerF0x0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it's good when courts enforce poorly written laws as a forcing function to have law makers (legislature) write useful laws. Sometimes the laws as written are nearly useless

I don't agree. That's an overly-simplified, idealistic view. Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. Our courts should help serve as a last line of defense against that, when appropriate.

> Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws.

I agree. I was more talking about the kinds of cases where a law is pragmatically unenforceable. Eg: where you could never make a reasonable case that a thing happened, or that the penalties have given the courts leeway to bring basically no consequence to an action. Perhaps the part that could have been more clear was "enforce" to which I more meant "enact"? I didn't mean apply costly consequences so much as "go through the motions".

There also is another subcase where I didnt bring up before, such as police not bothering due to effort:outcome ratio -- forexample police don't bother to go after bicycle thieves in san francisco

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#169

Post by SllX »

dolni wrote: post #167
jimbokun wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just becomes a dictatorship of the judiciary, who often times cannot be voted out.

There are checks and balances in place for a reason. Remember that (at least in the US) the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. Both the executive and legislative branches have a ton of power in deciding how law is created and applied. Lastly, judges usually can't be voted out at the federal level, but there are often local elections for judges. Congress has the ability to remove judges that are…

That co-equal nonsense is Nixon era propaganda from when he was gearing up to fight impeachment.

The fact that Congress buys into it and sells the merch because it is made up of people who don’t want to actually do their job is just another of a long list of disappointments that Congress churns out on the regular, but to put this in perspective: by the letter of the Constitution only Congress can impeach and remove from office members of the other two branches. They are not co-equal, they are supreme and are the Article I branch for a good reason.

Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts

#170

Post by dolni »

SllX wrote: post #169
dolni wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are checks and balances in place for a reason. Remember that (at least in the US) the three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal. Both the executive and legislative branches have a ton of power in deciding how law is created and applied. Lastly, judges usually can't be voted out at the federal level, but there are often local elections for judges. Congress has the ability to remove judges that are…

That co-equal nonsense is Nixon era propaganda from when he was gearing up to fight impeachment. The fact that Congress buys into it and sells the merch because it is made up of people who don’t want to actually do their job is just another of a long list of disappointments that Congress churns out on the regular, but to put this in perspective: by the letter of the Constitution only Congress can impeach and remove f…

Congress certainly has some extraordinary powers. The exercise of those powers also requires an extraordinarily large hurdle be cleared.

Whereas the President can issue sweeping policy changes via executive order and veto non-supermajority legislation (a ONE person decision), Congress requires a majority in one chamber to initiate impeachment and a super-majority in the other to convict.

Look at Trump. Every reason in the world to impeach, and even that failed. So much for supremacy, it seems.

Post reply on HN