lemonlime

4 ms·

1.
by lemonlime 4y ago
I'm not sure we need more suburbs. At the scale they're on today, they're unsustainable without massive subsidies from city dwellers. They're bad for the environment, bad for health, probably bad for the community in gen
2.
by lemonlime 4y ago
No one who understands how much 6,000 calories is could make this claim. That would mean they need to eat 8,000 calories a day for a normal 2000 calorie diet. That's like Michael Phelps level. That's like: leave the tournament, go
3.
by lemonlime 4y ago
To the contrary, you're being underly skeptical. This is a huge claim to base of a sample size of one guy at one event. To state the obvious that I hope doesn't need to be said to this audience: a sample size of one tells us exact
4.
by lemonlime 4y ago
If SF was unattractive, it wouldn't cost $2,500-$3,000 to live in mediocre housing with 6 housemates. Even people that don't have high paying tech jobs are lining up to pay these kinds of insane prices. They don't want to pay
5.
by lemonlime 4y ago
Their reasoning in Roe is pretty detailed and they do not come anywhere close to saying that the right to privacy legalizes everything done in private. Have you read Roe v Wade? Let's look at fraud. Who do you think is arguing that fra
6.
by lemonlime 4y ago
Sure. Have you read Roe v. Wade. Where do you get the idea that it's eerily close? Can you quote the specific words from that decision? Here are some that are at odds with what you are saying: "The privacy right involved, therefor
7.
by lemonlime 4y ago
No, it is not. Lawrence v. Texas was accepted by SCOTUS for privacy purposes only to examine this extremely narrow question: “2. Whether Petitioners’ criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital
8.
by lemonlime 4y ago
>Just because one has a right to privacy, it doesn't follow that everything done in private is legal. No one, anywhere, has ever argued that the right to privacy means everything done in private is legal. That is not even remotely c
9.
by lemonlime 4y ago
"Collectives agreements" are not an innovation. Underlying value is precisely, simply and only, a collective agreement (made by the market, instantaneously in real time billions of times a day) about how much something is worth. A
10.
by lemonlime 4y ago
Yeah when I read takes like the guy you're responding to, I have to wonder: where should the money go if not to the people that built the product? Management? Shareholders? You can say that but those people are doing less work for more
11.
by lemonlime 4y ago
The vast majority of engineers earning these salaries work for "startups" like Google minting huge amounts of money on software built by these engineers. They are underpaid if anything. Do you really think management or shareholde