Would I be correct in guessing that you believe creators should financially benefit from copyrights for moral and ethical reasons? I.e., that it's morally correct for those who created a work to financially profit from it the most, and that any system that gets in the way of this is some form of robbery?
> You are telling those people who live there that they can never rebuild? If they want to rebuild their house they need to make it into an apartment complex?
Is it possible you have misparsed "minimum height limit" as a set of minimum requirements on height? I believe it refers to a minimum on height limits, saying that lots cannot be zoned to be one-story-only. Your hypothetical family will be able to rebuild under this.
> This seems really shortsighted and ignores the problem that each city and community is a little different. Some cities along the Bart/Caltrain lines could handle this. Others could not. A top down approach saying everything is the same and must follow these rules is not going to work
You're absolutely right right! This is, in a great many ways, very far from an ideal approach. It refuses to offer the kind of flexibility that individual cities and communities could use to best benefit their residents.
The problem is that these cities and communities have taken that liberty and spent decades abusing it. They have, by and large, used their rights to decide that the appropriate amount of development for them is little to none. This legislation has the feel of a response to those abuses.
There are definitely people in this world who are not attracted to people who are of a dramatically different level of intelligence than them. Sometimes that means someone isn't attracted to a brilliant intellect because they feel inadequate.
Definitely. My husband had two previous relationships break up because, the women (each) said, "You're too smart for me."
My first marriage was much the same way. I didn't articulate it at the time (there were other problems), but he lost my attention... not because he couldn't keep up, but because I got tired of never being intellectually challenged. (He was and is a nice guy, just not the right one for me. I should have realized this when I discovered he owned one [count it one] book to be read for pleasure.)
I believe the comment you are responding to would say "both".
The learning styles to which they refer is the notion that different people learn better through visual or audio or hands-on experience. Spaced repetition versus intensive study is a different question, one of practice and time use, that doesn't address the question or value of "style".
At least, that's how I understand it. As a casual interpreter of someone else's comment, I could of course be wildly wrong.
Tech people in SV and the Bay live in a world where they experience consensus as a series of badly broken systems. The deep, durable pockets of poverty and misery? Built and maintained by democratic consensus. The needs-much-improvement public schools of SF and Oakland? Built and maintained by consensus. The state of BART? Built and maintained by consensus.
People on average don't like poverty, misery, gentrification, unreliable public transit, and spiking rents. But on average, people around here do seem to like all the things that contribute to those. Prop 13, "neighborhood character" concerns halting housing construction, and bus stops every block are all popular.
I can't claim to speak for everyone here. But personally? I see a lot of broken systems that I cannot fix. Where my attempts to help fix things for everyone are not only ineffectual, but actively unwelcome.
In light of that, I do what I can. I make myself comfortable. If I cannot address the suffering of others, I can at least limit my own suffering. No lives are improved if I join in the suffering of others to indulge some bizarre impulse to self-flagellate. My own suffering is not a moral imperative.
Well said. Rent control, prop 13, NIMBY all things that deepen the terrible consequences that are seen everyday.
And its crazy to me to visit Seattle right now and also find my way walking next to so many mentally ill homeless people.
I'm not big on most socialized solutions, but taking care of mentally ill people roaming the streets is one of those that are very easy to agree to. Yet the topic everyday is Trump this or that,while you had to walk past 10-20 people to get to the office.
There is some massive cognitive dissonance going on, that I think I can easily think and talk about because im a foreigner.
It's hard to take care of the mentally ill who live on the streets, especially in California. They cannot be legally confined for treatment until they are deemed a threat to themselves or others, and that's a pretty high bar. Until then, it's up to them to seek treatment. Many don't want it or can't handle the organization / discipline to stay treated.
As a result, it's not nearly as tractable a problem as it seems.
Yet cities like buenos aires with rampant poverty don't have this issue and it doesn't nearly as much to solve that particular problem.
It is a problem of policy and one that affects both the homeless and the non homeless people tremendously. I guess if the couple that had kept the presidio street and were to put up the homeless tents there , the problem would find a solution much faster.
As many others, its a problem of political will. What is unique, is that people everyday have to deal with homeless people in SF and yet its not a top agenda. Smoking pot is tho.
I didn't mean to place moral judgment on you; but I did mean to question why there is special moral onus being placed on the tech community.
Of course as an individual, one is naturally free to assist in the suffering that is proximal to them, given ability and desire.
But there's also a place for policy, which means organizing and coalition-building, as SF surely has no shortage of churches and non-profit organizations for social justice.
I also think that people aren't necessarily so "bearish" with regard to their attitude about democratic power. Surely President Trump is an example.
It's rarely easy to re-implement large or complex codebases in a new language. That kind of major effort requires significant signoffs from leadership and a large effort.
This tool? This tool takes an existing set of codebases and makes them safer. No major boiling of oceans required.
One thing I have noticed in several tech companies is that what is or isn't the time or place for a non community relevant outburst is determined to a surprising degree by the contents of the outburtst. A VP of Engineering making anti-Trump comments (in a context without other relevance to the business or matter at hand) at a company all-hands is deemed relevant. A person of similar rank making pro-Trump comments would have been treated very differently.
People are very bad at separating the personal from the professional. Indeed, many people seem to think it's their right to use the one to advance the other.
I felt alienated by that VP's comments. Not because of their contents, but because he felt so free to abuse his position.
I recently spoke with an elderly woman in San Francisco on exactly this subject. She regarded Uber as the best thing that's happened to her life in the past decade. It enables her mobility in ways that taxis never did.
This is hard to argue. For one since American perspective is different from my German/Europe and that's an individual, not a larger perspective on society.
The key difference, I think, is that in your background taxis are an affordable and reliable source of transportation services for all. They provide peak and off-peak services, for routes lucrative and otherwise.
The American experience I have had with taxis is that taxis are expensive, unreliable, and will try to ditch you if they deem your destination insufficiently lucrative. When you need them most, there's a very good chance that they won't show in a reasonable timeframe... or show at all. Which is to say that they avoid providing as many of the society-level benefits you describe as possible.
San Francisco in particular was a hell of useless taxis. For a long time, calling dispatch to get a taxi left you with odds of under 50% of one actually showing up.
From my visits to the U.S. I understand some if the disfunctionalities of U.S. taxi systems, similar to most other U.S. infrastructure, while not having deeper insights. This ruling is by an European court about European markets, though.
I was in San Francisco, the birthplace of Uber, in 2009/2010. If you wanted a taxi pickup, you generally had to call two or three taxi companies and wait 30-45 minutes for a two in three chance of a taxi showing.
reply