evancox100

7 ms·

31.
by evancox100 3y ago
> > application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost > I think this statement is eminently reasonable. Although a monopoly on coercive force is one important defining
32.
by evancox100 3y ago
For real though, if you are reading this, are a YIMBY, and are a person of means, why not try to generate a test case for this? Have someone set up a tent encampment on their own private lot and force the case. How can it possibly be legal
33.
by evancox100 3y ago
I'd think you'd be surprised, the prevailing elite opinion in progressive circles seems to be that application of coercive force (which is what makes a government a government) must be avoided at any and all cost. I don't thi
34.
by evancox100 3y ago
Imagine not letting someone build cheap housing that could keep someone sheltered with a roof over their head because of your own idiosyncratic opinions on housing style. I think letting people build the housing that people need would be 10
35.
by evancox100 3y ago
I am not an expert on homeless shelters and the exact pros and cons. You seem to have thoughts that getting someone into a shelter would be overall net negative, which is fine for you to have that opinion. But in the context of the discussi
36.
by evancox100 3y ago
That may be the case, again it is my original point that many liberals (which I consider myself one for the record) want to believe that all of our problems can be solved without any coercion or cruelty. But beloved pets are taken away from
37.
by evancox100 3y ago
I can only speak for myself, not "certain parts of this site", but I did not use the words liberty or freedom anywhere, or even invoke those principles in broad terms, I don't think.
38.
by evancox100 3y ago
These sound more like complaints with shelters than anything I said. If getting someone into a shelter bed is not overall a net positive for them and society, why are we even doing it in the first place? You're pointing out a lot of ot
39.
by evancox100 3y ago
Yes, I'll accept the incremental progress. I hope we can have similar solutions put in place where I live (TX).
40.
by evancox100 3y ago
I think what’s incredibly cruel is blocking people from building additional housing on their own private land that could help affordably house people at ZERO cost to the state. > Imagine being a young child, already traumatized by ending
41.
by evancox100 3y ago
You may have to euthanize that animal if no one wants to adopt it. Sorry, but there are worse things in the world than putting down animals. And don’t even try to come at me if you eat meat! Every one of us who eats factory farmed meat (y.t
42.
by evancox100 3y ago
CA’s deregulatory moves have been great steps in the right direction, and progress is usually incremental. But realistically the whole Bay Area should be at “if you want to build a 10 or 20 story apartment building on your own land, go for
43.
by evancox100 3y ago
Right, that’s what I mean. Why is enforcing it in either case ok under that reasoning? Clearly building a structure to house an additional person on private land would help keep people off the streets, even if it’s a shanty town. (Which is
44.
by evancox100 3y ago
I think well meaning liberals want to believe that all of society’s problems can be solved without any form of coercion, and that is simply not the case. If someone is homeless and has a dog, and there is a shelter bed for them, you may j
45.
by evancox100 3y ago
One of the problems is that homelessness is a flow problem, not a stock one. If there are X homeless people in a year, then next year something like 50% * X will be newly homeless. So you could house everybody currently homeless, but you’d
46.
by evancox100 3y ago
What I don’t understand is that if making it illegal to build whatever living structure you want on public land is “cruel and unusual punishment”, why is it still illegal to build the living structure of your choice on private land that
47.
by evancox100 3y ago
You seem not to understand the difference between consuming a good or service that someone else has agreed to pay for, vs not paying for it at all.
48.
by evancox100 3y ago
I should probably be fired for my prior answer because things like pn-junction diodes can definitely have an exponential-like dependence on temperature. In my head I was thinking of pure elements, like bulk metals. But there definitely coul
49.
by evancox100 3y ago
Not a superconductor expert, but resistance exponentially decreasing with temperature is not a normal phenomenon in most cases!
50.
by evancox100 3y ago
Yes, there was a paper published on an unsuccessful reproduction attempt from a Chinese team
51.
by evancox100 3y ago
There is a house—excuse me, “museum”, in my neighborhood for some guy’s hunting trophy collection. Private tours available on request, of course. What a sham!
52.
USCIS Will Run Second Lottery to Select More FY 2024 H-1B Cap Registrations(fragomen.com)
1 points by evancox100 3y ago|0 comments
53.
by evancox100 3y ago
Probably not, because they don’t come with the string attached that “you must build a new building and name it after me to receive this donation”.
54.
by evancox100 3y ago
Awfully convenient that their due diligence results in everyone spending a lot more money! Seriously though I have no problem with them setting a minimum quality bar, but the idea that poor people would be rich but for their ability to shop
55.
by evancox100 3y ago
IME Costco at least is not price competitive with typical grocery store private labels brands. Better quality? Sure, maybe, but they really don't compete at the "bagged discount cereal" price level AFAICT. In general Costco i
56.
by evancox100 3y ago
I bet the people that can only afford to fly Spirit are happy once they get to that exotic, faraway place that they couldn't otherwise afford to travel to. We'd all love to fly first class everywhere if we could. (The drip pricing
57.
by evancox100 3y ago
The tax prep software companies (Intuit, H&R Block, etc.) have successfully lobbied to make such a system illegal and keep the system as complicated as possible. There has been some movement to make this simpler but I don’t have much ho
58.
by evancox100 3y ago
Sure but that's an appeal to the employer setting the wages, not the worker. (Or is he talking about executive pay for themselves? I couldn't read the article.)
59.
by evancox100 3y ago
This is probably the closest example, and he is toeing the line there on a direct appeal to workers. But it also seems like broad expectation setting to both workers and employers that high inflation will not continue, so you don't nee
60.
by evancox100 3y ago
Right, but the central bank knows that IT is the one forcing the lower wages. They're not standing up there asking employees to shred part of their paycheck, because that is obviously dumb. The original person was talking about what wo

More ›