site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 12 of 12 results for

domain:streamable.com

An urban growth boundary would be a terrible thing. Letting people build on farmland they own is no different to letting people build on urban land they own.

But the YIMBYs aren't pushing to let farmland be developed. They don't want greenfield development, they want to be able to densify existing neighborhoods.

You wouldn't get the Kowloon Walled city, you'd get a smooth gradient of housing densities slowly decreasing from urban centres to rural locations.

We have that in much of the United States. It's decried as "sprawl" by urbanists. They don't want that; they say it leads to car dependence, long commutes, ugly parking lots, pollution, high infrastructure costs, gun ownership, and general resistance to dependence on government. They want to preserve undeveloped or agricultural land from the predations of housing developers, while densifying existing cities and suburbs.

And you know what? This will only happen when California's voters are minority white (and when that happens a Prop 13 repeal will follow shortly). Older whites use their entrenched position in western countries to benefit themselves at the expense of more dynamic and younger non-white immigrants, it's a tale as old as mass immigration itself and California is no different to the other places this is happening, see how the UK is using the taxes of the young (disproportionately non-white immigrants) to pay for the social care of the old (disproportionately white "natives", especailly so because non-whites are more likely to believe in filial responsibility and take care of their parents instead of thrusting them upon the state).

Past whites brought about Prop 13, present whites are tacitly voting to continue it but fututre non-whites will be the ones who get rid of it and free California from all the deadweight loss and misery this policy causes each year.

You're not wrong, but I feel like his posts started out as pure massive infodumps, then he occasionally started providing his opinions, they subtly but gradually went up in preachiness, and at some point I felt that my main focus became filtering the doom from his posts instead of actually absorbing the content of said posts. Personally I checked out around last year's unrest at OpenAI when I habitually opened his Substack and laid my eyes on a headline reading "You win, or we all die". I think that event legitimately mindbroke him to some extent.

Right, that's also a big thing. Seems less prevalent lately: I wonder if it's to prevent accusations of cultural appropriation? Or simply because youtube means that people can watch (and become fans of) the original before the remake is available on television.

It's especially weird that it didn't happen with anime because anime art is actually directly American in origin. Maybe that's why.

Understood.

Yes. It's not because we hate humor. It's because threads full of people saying "Lol" and "This" are annoying, so we discourage it.

And joined in an unholy bootleggers and baptists coalition with the environmentalists. CEQA might be the most economically destructive law ever written.

Some comedians were complaining about how the world is impossible to parody nowadays, but this is taking it to a whole new level. I mean... I can keep adding layers, but it's not going to push it from "real news" to satire...

An urban growth boundary, inside of which there is only high density development, outside of which no one may build at all.

I don't claim to want this at all. An urban growth boundary would be a terrible thing. Letting people build on farmland they own is no different to letting people build on urban land they own. You wouldn't get the Kowloon Walled city, you'd get a smooth gradient of housing densities slowly decreasing from urban centres to rural locations.

A lot of the UK's current housing problems stem from the fact that people can't build on farmland they own.

My explanation for the modern southerners being the intended target:

Most modern southerners are the descendants of Confederate soldiers. They live in the same places, have the same names, sing the same songs and sometimes wave the same flags. Like most people, they generally prefer to venerate their ancestor's impressive deeds whilst downplaying or forgetting the ones they disagree with.

Taking their statues, deliberately mutilating them, and then melting them down can be seen as, and was seen as, an attack on those people. It's saying, "This is what I think of your history, this is what I think of your pride," and it's also saying, "you can't stop me from destroying things that matter to you".

You may think that southerners shouldn't have taken it personally, but they did. And on observing this fact, the Left did not go, "Shit, dude, I'm sorry. I didn't realise this stuff mattered to you." They went, "Ha! Suck it, racists." Which to my mind tells you who they were aiming at.

In other words, it's 1.

They might like their neighbourhood, but they probably like $5 million for their quarter acre a lot more. Then big developers can consolidate and build something that can house more people and sell the units for $1 million each. Everyone wins: the people who sold their house, the developers, the people who now get to live affordably in the bay area, the government (a lot more tax for them) etc. etc.

Only losers are busybodies who want to restrict what others want to do with lan they own.

New housing gets built and rich foreigners like Indians come in and pay 100k over asking

This is a signal that supply nowhere near matches the level of demand. It's a sign we need to build even more, not control building.

Culture War nexuses

This isn't exactly some thought-out post, more just a culture war observation. Every now and then there happens an event that feels like a CW "nexus" where it is the intersection of like five different hot topics in one moment. I had this thought while walking yesterday and wondered if someone else had any other examples. Here's two of mine:

A couple of weeks ago in Toronto a group of Indian immigrants, presumably in a gang of some sort, robbed a government-owned liquor store. They pulled a knife on an off-duty cop there. When they left, they were pursued by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and regional cops. In a rented van the thieves went the wrong way down the 401, the busiest highway in the world; the OPP stopped pursuit and told the regional cops to do the same, but they continued to follow. The getaway van hit a car going the opposite way. The other car's inhabitants was also a family of Indian immigrants: new parents, a baby, and their newly-arrived grandparents (via family reunification presumably). The getaway driver, the grandparents, and the baby were killed. The getaway driver was out on bail on weapon's charges, had a suspended license, and was under court order not to drive.

If you've been paying attention to any political issues in Canada you can see how this neatly ties together a bunch of hot topics into one incident. I have another:

In late 2022 a cement mixer in Berlin hit a female cyclist. The driver got out of his truck to check on the cyclist and was stabbed by a mentally ill homeless refugee. An ambulance arrived to transport the critically injured woman to the hospital, but on the way was stopped by climate protestors who had glued themselves to the road. The cyclist died but the truck driver survived.