ikeboy

49 ms·

451.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>There's a big difference between "32% of a thousand pro-NN comments are untrustworthy" and "60% of a million anti-NN comments are untrustworthy." If you look on the sidebars, they reached thousands of people on
452.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>Unless we have those stories, then this pattern is plainly incompatible with actual humans submitting comments, even with the aid of some automation or pre-written letters. A site is set up to collect names for form letters. They don&#x
453.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>They also haven't given you enough information to know the size of the pro-NN batch they investigated, so we still don't know that it's "massive." There's thousands of people who said they didn't leave
454.
by ikeboy 6y ago
The standard of evidence you're requiring to call something a bot compaign is high enough that nothing counts. So sure. It's theoretically possible that all the apparent hints of impropriety are just coincidences and lots of peopl
455.
by ikeboy 6y ago
And that's not even addressing the fact that WSJ contacted a portion of those leaving some of the form letters and found that 32% of one pro-NN batch said they never sent anything. The number is higher for the other anti-NN batches the
456.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>Where is the evidence that there was even a single bot campaign - again, emphasis on bot - on the pro-net-neutrality side? There's plenty: >One 369-word comment supporting the Obama-era net-neutrality rules was posted on the FCC
457.
by ikeboy 6y ago
Did you read the WSJ article I linked to? It shows plenty of fake comments submitted by the pro-net-neutrality side. Just asserting that it was only one side who resorted to fake comments is an evidence-free position. I struggle to think ho
458.
by ikeboy 6y ago
Perhaps - my own pet theory is it was just some bored guys on 4chan who did it because they could. The thing is, a lot of the bots didn't submit comments directly, which would have required getting keys to submit in bulk and leave a tr
459.
by ikeboy 6y ago
>He said the FCC received more than 7.5 million comments consisting of the same short-form letter supporting the current rules from about 45,000 unique email addresses, “all generated by a single fake e-mail generator website.” He said t
460.
by ikeboy 6y ago
Friendly reminder that there were massive bot compaigns on both sides of the issue. https://archive.fo/sp9Q7 this WSJ article found thousands of people that said they never posted the comments attributed to them. >One 36
461.
by ikeboy 7y ago
It releases at 2100 UTC.
462.
by ikeboy 7y ago
I can confirm this. I've brought in masks recently and some shipments have been stuck in Chinese customs for over two weeks now. It's crazy.
463.
by ikeboy 7y ago
What externalities, and why is it infeasible to tax those directly?
464.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Great. Now get rid of the housing value tax and increase LVT to 95% or so.
465.
by ikeboy 7y ago
You still haven't pointed to any actual examples. Georgism is specifically about land, not housing. The theory is that land value isn't much affected by investment of the landowner. Housing is, and that can be owned by individuals
466.
by ikeboy 7y ago
And why is "sprawl" bad?
467.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The portion of tax on the building serves to discourage density. What's your point?
468.
by ikeboy 7y ago
What historical examples of negative consequences of government control of land and renting it out to the highest bidder are you thinking of? Georgism has a solid theoretical foundation.
469.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Preventing buying and selling of housing is actively harmful. Land shouldn't be sold, it should all be owned by the state and leased out at market value; equivalently, implement LVT at close to 100% of land value. The state setting a
470.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Fine, you want a policy that's better than the one described in OP but feasible on a small scale? Have the city buy up land and rent it out at market price. Allow any kind of housing to be built on top of it, have no requirements for i
471.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The article is about land trusts in general, not just the one in the headline. Regardless, the correct solution is to implement LVT. Without that, almost by definition market prices will be higher than they should be. The market failure is
472.
by ikeboy 7y ago
A far better "hack" would be LVT+get rid of zoning and other restrictions on building. That would actually reduce market prices instead of requiring a subsidy. >Compassionate government Nope, a government driving up market pric
473.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Why is it good for the government to buy up property and rent it at below market prices? That's just a handout and is inefficient, discouraging denser housing. Edit: they're specifically requiring someone to build a house there. I
474.
by ikeboy 7y ago
>A house surrounded by forests or a lake or even just farmland is more desirable to me than more dense housing, so I don't entirely understand Henry George's point. The point is that whoever values the land most should get it.
475.
by ikeboy 7y ago
The article compares this to Georgism, but the comparison seems misplaced. The point of a land value tax is not to make housing more affordable, but to ensure land goes towards the most productive use. If LVT was implemented along with zoni
476.
Amazon holding over 4.2 mil dollars during a pandemic, suffocating our business(sellercentral.amazon.com)
3 points by ikeboy 7y ago|0 comments
477.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://medium.com/@corporatebullies I've been documenting aggressive brand protection practices by various companies, and also general e-commerce commentary. Only have two posts so far but intend to continue along sim
478.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Sure, but credit is cheap and easy. You can get a HELOC easily.
479.
by ikeboy 7y ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/the-net-worth-of-the-average...
480.
by ikeboy 7y ago
Federal reserve including all assets and subtracting all debts. If you owe 300k on your house that's worth 400k, you might have a liquidity problem but you aren't poor.

More ›