philipallstar

61 ms·

1771.
by philipallstar 2y ago
You're missing the point. The strong men are the ones building roads and sewers and buildings and exploring and policing and making safe and guarding and inventing and transporting, and the weak men are the ones deferring and allowing
1772.
by philipallstar 2y ago
It's not easy, but it definitely is simple.
1773.
by philipallstar 2y ago
It's run by Talis - isn't that private?
1774.
by philipallstar 2y ago
It's not cheap education. What is the point in deliberately changing the topic? It's about paying people to consume free education.
1775.
by philipallstar 2y ago
You think virtue signalling is playing to the far right? Care to define... any of your terms?
1776.
by philipallstar 2y ago
This is the first-order, emotional reaction, yes, but policy should be made based on its full effects, not just its sales pitch's popularity with first-order-emoting voters.
1777.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> mostly because they were liberal journalists No, blue ticks were for far more groups than liberal journalists. You're right that certain progressive anti-shibboleths, like saying "masks might not work" or "trans wom
1778.
by philipallstar 2y ago
Plenty of people arrested in the UK by the police for Tweets. Nothing to do with separation of powers; it's more like an administrative/HR/etc layer in all sorts of orgs that has shared and hired its own values for a few deca
1779.
by philipallstar 2y ago
I'm not saying it's all positive. I'm countering something that says it's all negative. And TikTok is more like Facebook than a small startup.
1780.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> In western politics, there are various definitions of the word "progressive". The definitions that include Kamala Harris are mostly used by right-wing Americans. No, Kamala Harris had some pretty extreme "Progressive&quo
1781.
by philipallstar 2y ago
Well no, if you don't have money to continue, that's not someone killing you.
1782.
by philipallstar 2y ago
No, it means the company can succeed and the service they built has a chance to continue. The choice isn't "be acquired or enter a Nirvana" it's often "be acquired or die".
1783.
by philipallstar 2y ago
The bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
1784.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> Fewer huge companies will never innovate as quickly as a diverse and competitive ecosystem, especially when the cost to develop and deliver is minimal. It's not clear that this is true. Facebook produces a load of stuff out of its
1785.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> Housing in Britain is expensive because getting planning permission is difficult. It's true that planning departments are very expensive, don't do much positively, and still seem to allow awful-looking things to be built, and
1786.
by philipallstar 2y ago
Progressive movements have giant amounts of funding. Every big business in the US and mostly in the UK as well are donating to various Progressive causes. Loads of Progressive people are fairly rich tech workers. Most of Hollywood are Progr
1787.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> I know in the UK people have to pay for it, so they just dump it in nature instead. Collect it from people's doorsteps for free and fly tipping wouldn't be nearly as big an issue anymore. This just isn't true. The counci
1788.
by philipallstar 2y ago
It's deep pockets often from house price inflation due to demand increases from immigration and price increases from the rise of two-income households. The latter won't continue to happen, although the former will.
1789.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> 980k in 1963, off a population of 53m. ONS[0] shows deaths of around 550k at the same time. > 775k in 2008, off a population of 62m. Same ONS chart shows more like 720k births, and 500k deaths as well. > I feel like you're b
1790.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> I'm saying that if population growth was 100% from local births, or if population growth was much lower, we'd still be in this situation. The source of the population growth is immaterial. It's not immaterial. People oft
1791.
by philipallstar 2y ago
Yes, it's inbelievably harder to do things as a single person or a single-earner family than it used to be. There's just no hope for the majority of earners. No hope at all.
1792.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> Only if you put their bed in the cupboard under the staircase; normally they do need their own bedroom That's not to do with them needing their own place. If there are some smaller dwellings and flats for singles, some family dwel
1793.
by philipallstar 2y ago
I agree with you, but I don't think they're absolute fundamental drivers. Low interest rates will drive prices up, but not to the point we have now where nice-sized family houses are divided into multiple small residences and it&#
1794.
by philipallstar 2y ago
I'm not commenting on whether overall it's a good thing economically, although I'd be astonished if it is. I'm just saying it's clearly one of the two main factors for making life incredibly difficult for younger pe
1795.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> On the supply side, natural population growth due to reproduction is surely a bigger driver than immigration This is from ONS[0]: > Natural change has previously been the main driver of UK population growth. However, since the 1990s
1796.
by philipallstar 2y ago
> Getting a house like my parents or grandparents had would be impossible, and they weren't rich. The two main factors for this are: two-person income households up-bidding, making it less affordable for single people/mums&#x2F