dventimi

8 ms·

61.
by dventimi 2y ago
Just as I thought. You said you know a working-class person who can afford a Tesla, in a thread about homelessness in San Francisco which, last time I checked, is in the United States. You said she was a nursing student in Shanghai in th
62.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Then perhaps you should clarify it in the beginning as to not have these exchanges on semantics Well, nobody's perfect. After all, perhaps you could've been perceptive enough to understand that I meant that for a long time
63.
by dventimi 2y ago
Indeed
64.
by dventimi 2y ago
Quick question: why do you ask?
65.
by dventimi 2y ago
The commenter above that introduced the word affordable, that commenter was me, and I'm free to clarify what I meant, which I just did.
66.
by dventimi 2y ago
The median price for a Tesla Model 3 in 2024 was ~$47k. The median price for a 4-door compact sedan in 2024 was ~$26k, or almost half as much. I'm sure some working-class people can afford a Tesla. None of these are hard and fast
67.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Humans Can you be more specific? > Chicago Chicago's tech sector, while growing, is still smaller than SF's and was much smaller in the past. > Letting people who want to live in San Francisco live there Obviously
68.
by dventimi 2y ago
> the two groups you name are not coherent classes Sure, they are. "tech workers" tend to work in tech companies. "everyone else" tend not to work in tech companies. It's quite coherent. Are there exception
69.
by dventimi 2y ago
Continue to say there's infinite demand if you like, but I won't be joining you. As for "we're actively accomplishing it in other cities", I'm interested in these questions: 1. Who's "we"? 2. Whi
70.
by dventimi 2y ago
What's her secret? She works in healthcare, which is very expensive in the United States and especially in the Bay Area, and tends to pay nurses very very well (especially in the Bay Area). This illustrates my point. Her high salary
71.
by dventimi 2y ago
Why are you curious? I didn't say there were only two classes. I said there's been "roughly" two classes over the last 30 years. Add other classes if you want (billionaire tech owners who don't code, billionaires
72.
by dventimi 2y ago
> You claim that it’s impossible for San Francisco to satiate demand No, I don't. I claim it's difficult and unlikely. EDIT: so long as it offers an urban playground to people earning high salaries, that is
73.
by dventimi 2y ago
Personally, I don't know any working-class people who can afford a Tesla, let alone a space launch vehicle.
74.
by dventimi 2y ago
People did vote with their feet, moving out of the core of the Bay Area to its periphery. https://chatgpt.com/share/67b36262-3c7c-8013-aa61-f1ff8088fb...
75.
by dventimi 2y ago
I'm sure there isn't.
76.
by dventimi 2y ago
Not necessarily. https://www.wired.com/story/no-more-deals-san-francisco-cons...
77.
by dventimi 2y ago
Except that the "side effects" of being rich aren't "side effects", they're the essential effects. Being richer than other people by definition means you can outcompete those other people for goods and service
78.
by dventimi 2y ago
No, I don't think that the demand to live in San Francisco ever has been or ever will be "infinite." I also don't think that's a relevant question.
79.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Having lots of highly-paid folks around is good for local workers' incomes You're describing income inequality. Personally, I don't believe income inequality is good for everybody. I think it tends to benefit some pe
80.
by dventimi 2y ago
I can't agree with this. At various times over the last 30 years, there has been roughly two classes of people in SF: "tech workers", and "everyone else." The "everyone else" comprises teachers, restaur
81.
by dventimi 2y ago
"engineers making six figures" is the cause of San Francisco's problems, not "nimbyism."
82.
by dventimi 2y ago
There are many good treatments of this supposed loophole. I happen to like this one: https://blog.gruffdavies.com/2017/12/24/newtonian-physics-is ... It points out many flaws in Norton's reasoning, some f
83.
by dventimi 2y ago
That was a typo from a phone keyboard.
84.
by dventimi 2y ago
I was friends with Eric at the time (we've long since lost touch) and he asked me to review a draft of his book. I didn't have the heart to tell him it was unpublishable gibberish. The joke's on me, obviously: turns out, it
85.
by dventimi 2y ago
I'll take that as a "no".
86.
by dventimi 2y ago
There are many good treatments of this supposed loophole. I happen to like this one: https://blog.gruffdavies.com/2017/12/24/newtonian-physics-is... It points out many flaws in Norton's reasoning, some
87.
by dventimi 2y ago
> Not on Norton's Dome Really? Are you sure about that? Have you tried it? Where is this "Newton's Dome" so that the experiment can be replicated?
88.
by dventimi 2y ago
From the second paragraph: A mass sits on a dome in a gravitational field. After remaining unchanged for an arbitrary time, it spontaneously moves in an arbitrary direction, with these indeterministic motions compatible with Newtonian
89.
by dventimi 2y ago
https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/DomePSA2006.pdf
90.
by dventimi 2y ago
Sounds like a YP

More ›