quantumBerry

10 ms·

31.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>Energy is a zero sum game. Only from the view of the universe, not from the view of humans. It cost less energy to drill for oil than the energy you get out of the gasoline. It takes less energy to create a solar panel than what you c
32.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Yes you can. Buy REIT ETFs. It's investing in real estate but with high liquidity and very low minimum investment.
33.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Now apply your idea to dollars, and think about who prints the dollars.
34.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Taxation is theft.
35.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
I've already stated the solution, it is the parent to which we are all responding: >What we really should be asking is why is google examining user data at all. They should not be in the position where they can even find out who is
36.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
It's estimated 2 billion people use google. And in the US for instance, one third of the people here have records for criminal activity. Google doesn't have the manpower to call the police on millions of criminals actively using
37.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Intent matters. For instance, if a fed or informant asks to use your services and you think they are doing it for illegal purposes, such as terrorism, then you can be convicted (Even though the fed / informant never actually would ha
38.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
>they should not in any way be without liability for wrongly suspending a user's account just because their automated system unjustifiably "flagged" them. A legal team of 1,000+ at google is betting that you're wrong.
39.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
The rules don't require the person holding the content to scan the content. Normally a DMCA claim is issued before the host has to get involved. Lets say you and I opened a joint safe deposit box at the bank to share USB drives togeth
40.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
And in the meantime before a human can check it, you think google will be completely without liability if they flag someone as a terrorist but let them continue on with their business, even aiding them with all of google services?
41.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
The entities that authored or authorized the system to identify the content as such are the persons that "think" so, because they wrote the definitions that identified him as such. You don't get to just make a system and tot
42.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Agreed. Intent is important. Unfortunately, google clearly has stated they think terroristic acts are happening. Once you indicate that you believe a counterparty is engaging in terrorist acts, you mustn't support them. Quite a few
43.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
We're not talking about harrassment, we're talking about google thinking this is a violent terrorist who is sharing pictures of their armored vehicles. Can you really say with a straight face that once google thinks they have a te
44.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Terrorism is usually only defined by your allegiance, yes. In this case google is a US company so in the case they know violent islamic extremists use their platform, their allegiance is with the Americans, even if it happens to be the Ame
45.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
So you think if google really thinks you're a terrorist that they are obliged to go on supporting you? There's a big difference between having no idea terrorists use your platform, and actually supporting them by enabling those y
46.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
A better analogy would be if you made terroristic remarks to the sporting goods clerk, and walmart banned you not just from sporting goods but the entire store. Gmail and Google Drive are just different departments of the same place. But i
47.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
If google really thinks he is a terrorist, which apparently they did, why on earth would they allow him to use gmail or android? It makes sense they would lock him out of everything possible. What we really should be asking is why is googl
48.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
There's a sweet spot where the risk is significant compared to not smoking, but average compared to the rest of the things in your life like riding a motorcycle. It's probably less than a few cigarettes a day but a lot more than
49.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Yes I have been to actual shanty towns including in a very poor latin american country and the middle east. I don't know why people here have such a hard on for there being something wrong with the people in trailer homes and shanty t
50.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
1) is no barrier at all to a residence. Maybe 30x30ft is all you need at most for a small family sized structure. 2) Is only a barrier in rural areas, otherwise hauling in water into a tank is still a lot better than being homeless /
51.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
The negative impact of zoning requirements don't negate the negative impact of building codes, they just add more fuel to the fire. However zoning requirements are far less egregious; you wouldn't put a daycare next to a massive
52.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Please explain how the people in these shanty towns would be better off if the only house they can afford (a shack) is demolished for failure to meet code and they end up homeless. You paint a perfect picture of people who would be ruined
53.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Does the trailer park get to overrule local building codes? Will I dislike them because they're poor or because people who live in trailers are just bad people?
54.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Great, will I be able to register my kid for public school there after doing so? I'll put the yurt down as my primary residence; I hear Berkeley has good public schools. If so give me their contact information and I will take a seriou
55.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
I'm not arguing against the progression of housing. I'm arguing to be able to build a house I can afford on land I own. Building codes serve to lock property owners out of the means to actually live on their own property. And e
56.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
The cheapest land on which you could build a yurt or small cabin (illegally) in Berkeley I found on realtor is 60k (it is pending sale). The cheapest house is well north of 200k. You could build your own yurt or cabin for only 10 grand.
57.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
Raw land is cheap. Housing codes are what keep people like myself out of the housing market. If I could just dump a yurt on the land, or a cabin like our forefathers, then housing prices would be a total non issue. But a bunch of selfish
58.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
I don't follow. The total wealth inside country starts out here: value of house + value of rest of economy. Now someone foreign comes into the country to live there and work in tech from abroad. They buy a house. Now the wealth insi
59.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
You just said the middle class was the competition for these houses. If the middle class are the ones who own these houses it follows they are the ones selling them. You seem upset you were caught up in your fallacious logic and fail to u
60.
by quantumBerry 5y ago
> it would however hurt the middle class since If the middle class are the ones buying the properties, then they're the ones selling them. Therefore it actually injects money into the middle class, foreign capital that never existe

More ›