@tikimixologist's banner p

tikimixologist


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:09:57 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 257

tikimixologist


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:09:57 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 257

Verified Email

They did quite explicitly say what was objectionable on Jan 20 (the article you link is from Jan 19)

https://twitter.com/SenMannyDiazJr/status/1616565048767385601

My guess is that at the time the reporter called, they were in the process of making the graphic included in the tweet above. They might have even told the AP reporter who asked them but the reporter decided not to mention that a detailed statement was forthcoming - that is the kind of thing DeSantis hostile reporters have done.

The FLDOE's twitter account also linked to this page describing the African American studies curriculum and listing 6 courses on the topic which are taught in Florida. https://www.fldoe.org/academics/standards/subject-areas/social-studies/african-amer-hist.stml

Houston and Tokyo (notable places that allow building houses) are not even close to Kowloon. So clearly the market equilibrium is not where you think.

You should actually pay attention to the numbers. The Brooklyn West phenomenon that you fear involves literally 2/3 of all Americans moving to Silicon Valley.

I am not aware of any YIMBY who has proposed moving 100% of America into NYC or Mega SV and banning houses anywhere else. You seem to have confused them with NIMBYs - the latter group is the folks who oppose building a Brooklyn density San Jose in the vacant land adjacent to San Jose.

There certainly is a limiting principle - it's when the marginal value of additional housing ~= marginal cost of providing it.

It's the exact same limiting principle that causes my local supermarked to be a pleasant place to shop instead of a warehouse sized ball pit full of rotting apples that customers don't want. Apple producers only make as many apples as they think customers want to buy at a price that makes them a reasonable profit.

And for any housing purchasers who don't want to live in such a place, they won't have to. If we turn Silicon Valley into a 266M person megalopolis by increasing density to Brooklyn levels, that leaves 67M people spread throughout the rest of a depopulated US. Plenty of space if you want to live there.

Tokyo is not stagnant in terms of population.

https://viz.wtf/post/158158642063/tokyo-population-over-the-years-look-at-what (Yes, the graph is bad, but it's the only one I can find with years after 2010.)

Since about 2000, Japan is (on a per-capita basis) no more stagnant than the US. If Tokyo were full of NIMBYs, people could afford to pay more.

https://i0.wp.com/fabiusmaximus.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Per-Capita-Real-GDP-of-US-and-Japan.png?resize=889%2C400&ssl=1

If you want to find a metric on which Tokyo and major US cities/metro areas differ, try housing units built. In Tokyo, this was about 100k units/year since 1998.

https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00782/

So why don't landlords increase prices to capture more of that GDP growth? Because Tokyo has nearly 1M vacant apartments and if a landlord increases prices too much their flat will join the vacant pool. Simple as that.

At peak housing bubble, the entire state of California managed 150k houses/year and as of 2016 it was about 50k.

https://journal.firsttuesday.us/wp-content/uploads/California-Annual-Construction-2017.png

As I mentioned in another thread, we could build 19M homes in Santa Clara alone if we simply increased the density to that of San Francisco. We just choose not to.

What about turning London (density 14k/sq mi) into Brooklyn (38k/sq mi), which would allow the population to double?

Why do NIMBYs constantly apply an excluded middle fallacy, thinking that the only possibilities are San Jose (population density 1.5k/sq mi) or Kowloon?

Why can’t we make a giant metropolis in Oklahoma? And build it to 30 million people.

Or better - why can't we make a giant metropolis in Silicon Valley? The current population density of the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area) is 1.1k/sq mi and it has 7.7M people. The density of Brooklyn is 38k/sq mi and San Francisco is 18k/sq mi.

If we increased the density of Silicon Valley to that of Brooklyn, we could fit 266M people there. We could fit 21M people alone in Santa Clara (San Jose plus a couple of suburbs) if we increased the density to San Francisco or Cambridge levels.

If you want to do it on unoccupied land, there is literally unoccupied land the size of San Jose directly adjacent to San Jose.

Almost every capital city in the developed world (and big parts of developing) is struggling with unaffordable rent, insane house price rises etc.

Tokyo isn't. Guess why.

So there is the minor problem that I have with YIMBY people - why do you think that building more will actually solve the problem with unaffordable housing?

Simple arithmetic. The problem is a lot of people want to live in or near central london or wherever, but there are too few houses for them. If we double the number of homes and they aren't vacant, twice as many people have satisfied their desire to live in or near central london.

If prices are still high, we probably just didn't add enough homes.

We have been adding lanes to highways since time immemorial (aka the 50s) and the congestion is still here.

A congested 10 lane highway is helping twice as many people reach their destination as a congested 5 lane highway. So it sounds like the main problem is that we didn't add enough lanes.

There are plenty of empty highways, which indicates that one can build highways that meet and exceed the demand.

Should we even solve it? Is it ok to infringe on the right to move to actually strike a balance.

That probably is what california NIMBYs would like.

The effect size is very strong, so it's pretty easy to find features correlated with race that capture it. One public graph I've seen is fig 7 in this paper which shows a 10-20% racial gap in non-delinquency (i.e. at a FICO score of 600, 40% of blacks and 20% of asians go delinquent for the particular loan product in that dataset).

The academics doing AI ethics tend to be doing simpler things, e.g. trying to figure out what a "fair" lending algorithm is.

The technical challenge is finding an algo which spots hidden patterns that predict loan repayment except for the biggest pattern that predicts repayment (namely that blacks are much less likely to repay them, holding all else equal). But stating it in such explicit terms is a cancellable offense.

But as a milestone it's probably the first time anyone even attempted to define AI ethics, isn't it?

I don't think it's the first time. There are a few serious attempts to do this which mostly fall short and also fall into the trap of being super careful to obfuscate what they are actually saying so the rest of academia doesn't cancel the researchers.

I vaguely recall seeing /r/sneerclub sneering at someone who gave a talk where he put these multiple disparate ideas into the same powerpoint and said "can't catch em all".

I see this as an instance of a broader pattern: "All changes must be Pareto improvements".

No, the typical demands to not have "bias" (which usually means "disparate impact") tend to eliminate even pareto improvements.

Consider a lending algo which currently approves X% of blacks and Y% of whites. Now suppose AI comes along and approves (X+1)% of blacks and (Y+3)% of whites. That's a pareto improvement but it introduces "bias".

What this is a broader pattern of is "we want to make vague and incoherent demands so that we have an excuse to exercise power over you".

Your math is wrong. Consider a universe of 6 people.

  • 3 men, A=$20k, B=$50k, C=$70k, for an average income of $46.66k.

  • 3 women, X=$20k, Y=$50k, Z=$70k.

There is an identical distribution of wages (and hence average pay is identical), meeting your criteria.

Female hypergamy means a woman is only willing to marry someone who earns more than her. So C marries Y (gap of $20k), B marries X (gap of $30k), while A and Z remain single. The average married woman earns $25k less than her husband.

Plus, pro-war means supporting the security state which directly helps Democrats win. (See Russiagate or twitter files, for example.)

Yeah a fair bit is contingent on stuff like "how feasible was it for Lando to send a message to Han" and "exactly how bad is it all of Lando's people if he resists" - all of which is off screen. (Near as I can tell the answer to the latter is "very bad" given Lando's warning that everyone needs to GTFO.)

But given Lando's later actions (rescue Han/blow up the death star instead of running off and continuing his career as a con man), I'd suggest he's probably a decent enough guy who was put into a tough situation where all choices involve the Empire harming someone.

The plane will consume roughly the same amount of fuel whether it is full or empty.

Airlines stop running flights that are regularly empty.

If you want to travel international,

The environmental alternative is to not travel.

A non-trivial chunk of the contradiction here is that a disproportionate number of environmentalists are upper middle class westerners who refuse to reduce their consumption remotely in the direction of the poverty levels that preventing climate change would require (absent the widespread use of nuclear energy).

Resign his post, get arrested, Han shows up and they get captured when their ship lands ("they showed up right before you did"). Vader loses his dramatic entrance but still accomplishes ihis mission.

Seek tangible assurances from a guy he has absolutely no leverage against? (A point illustrated by the second clip I linked.)

Near as I can tell, the best thing Lando can do is cooperate until he gets the opportunity to actually do something that might work.

I looked at a 20 year: https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/bond/tmubmusd20y?countrycode=bx

Which I admit is perhaps a little cherrypicked to be the top of the long term yield curve, and also just a mental ballpark calculation: https://www.ustreasuryyieldcurve.com/

But twitter presumably once achieving $2 billion income would still be growing income at inflationary rates or more. Even if Twitter just grows at nominal income growth that’s another 3.5% yield.

Or it could be shrinking as competition in that space grows (due to Amazon + Microsoft getting in the game).

I agree that a blue chip history of growing with inflation twitter could be valuable, but that's not just getting twitter to $2B profit. That's getting twitter to the point of having had stable profits for long enough that equity markets consider it reliable. That's quite a ways in the future, just to get back to the $44B price tag.

A little bit of googling illustrates that the US was a very minor part of the international slave trade (about 2%). The largest destinations of slaves were Brazil (44%), British Caribbean (21%) and Spanish Americas (12%).

https://www.slavevoyages.org/assessment/estimates

If you're shipping 4M slaves to the Caribbean (British + French), shipping another 470k to the US was a sideshow. I find it implausible that eliminating the US market would meaningfully affect the infra, but eliminating the Caribbean market certainly might.

If he can get twitter to 6 billion revenue and 4 billion costs then it’s worth 50 billion.

Interest rates are 4.09% as of yesterday, so a highly liquid $2B revenue stream guaranteed by full faith and credit of the US government is worth $50B.

Even if Musk gets twitter to make $2B/year, it's certainly not highly liquid and/or guaranteed by the US govt. Hence it's worth less.

That said, if Musk can get twitter to $1B EBIT then debt service is handled and he eventually owns twitter outright and just needs to keep it in the black. Then it's his prestige property, much like the Bezos Post or the Soros Conspiracy (I have no idea what to call Soros's shadowy enterprise that gets you called antisemitic if you acknowledge it's existence and influence).

A major distinction is that "roll hard left and die" is losing other people's money for a cause whereas whatever Musk does is losing largely his own money for a cause.

(Other people - e.g. banks who financed him - may also lose money, but they have senior debt. Musk, Jack and the Saudis have only equity. It seems unlikely that the banks will lose money, debt service is $1B/year, assuming average fully loaded cost per fired employee of $200k/year Musk just saved $1.5B of which $1B is going to banks.)

Did Lando even have a warped moral compass? From his perspective:

Lando is currently a productive and contributing member of society who is also responsible for the lives and livelihood of his many employees. The Empire shows up immediately before an old criminal buddy is set to arrive. Vader tells him to cooperate in arresting one of the guys (not his buddy) or else they will conquer Cloud City (stick), but will otherwise leave him and all his people alone (Carrot). Vader lies to him about the fate of the others and does not reveal that Han will be given to Jabba.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=q8irC6QMH9A https://youtube.com/watch?v=6_P1eWl77vo

Here's what Lando does after he figures out Vader lied to him:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=ojoz7qO8XP8

It's not clear to me what Lando should have done differently.

It's a terrible fit for Star Wars.

In Star Wars, the richest person is the Emperor who became rich by using a powerful government to take control of the galaxy and extract their resources violently via taxes. It is quite clearly illustrated in the movies that private sector institutions (Jabba's mafia, Jawa traders, Cloud City) are entirely subservient to the Empire. For example:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6_P1eWl77vo https://youtube.com/watch?v=q8irC6QMH9A

Johnson's "military industrial complex except pure capitalism ignore government" story doesn't fit this.

Lets consider the explicit historical parallels:

  • The Empire is drawn from Rome story wise and Tsarist Russia/Soviet Russia/Nazi Germany in terms of imagery/musical themes.

  • Lucas has also cited a real life American politician as inspiration for Palpatine. Said politician is famous for anti-Soviet rhetoric and left wing economic policies (wage/price controls, restricting "windfall" profits, rationing goods, wealth transfers).

  • The First Order is more explicitly Nazi in it's imagery.

How does one get Rian Johnson's story to remotely fit either the actual movies or any of the historical inspiration?

Most states let a resident stay in the property and just put the taxes into a lien on the house, to be paid off by the estate after the death of the owner. (Sometimes via a forced sale if the estate can't cover the debt by other means.)

Here's the original definition of the Chinese Robber Fallacy, from Alyssa Vance:

The Chinese Robber Fallacy is where you use a generic problem to attack a specific person or group, even though other groups have the problem just as much (or even more so).

[...editing a bit out, which you can find via above link...]

“But don’t non-Chinese rob people too?”

“Maybe, but if so, that doesn’t make the Chinese any less guilty, does it? First we should deal with the Chinese criminal problem, and then if we’re successful, maybe we can move on to other types of theft.”

My steelman of the Jim Crow position (and note I'm not a Jim Crow supporter!) is that they are making this argument instead:

“But don’t prosecutors let white people get away with murdering vulnerable people while using racial slurs too?”

“Nope, not even once. At least not since the globohomo cuck regime took over. RETVRN!" (Since this is a steelman, I'm assuming they know about Bombingham, Emmet Till and the 2'nd klan and are restricting their claims to the past decade or two.)

To prove them wrong you could provide a single example of a white guy filming himself doing a hate crime and then prosecutors dropping charges for restorative justice.

The OP specified "elderly black victim" but in my view you'd certainly prove your point if the black victim was a pregnant woman, in a wheelchair or whatever. I would not consider you to have proved your point if the victim was a fit young man in a gang or if it was some crazy situation like that Jewish guy with a brain tumor who faked 100 antisemitic bomb threats, however.

I am not aware of any such incidents but I'm also not all that interested in the WN stuff.