timr

43 ms·

811.
by timr 1y ago
> It hasn't panned out that way at all however, it's just great for everyone. Oh, come now. Try a little bit harder to see the other side. Live here, don't have a car -- haven't had one for 20 years. Ride the subway
812.
by timr 1y ago
I think the better argument for your side is that a large number of people have a utility function that isn't rational -- or at least, not based on commute time saved. Yes, the market will find a new equilibrium, but if I'm right
813.
by timr 1y ago
> 15% faster between stops seems highly likely to save that driver an hour or so in their day. Probably some gas, engine wear and tear, etc. too. Great. Prove it! When you use words like "probably", it indicates that you'r
814.
by timr 1y ago
> In many case, I don’t even think it’s conscious: many business owners, especially people who started / inherited successful small businesses in city neighborhoods, moved out to the suburbs for bigger houses/schools/etc.
815.
by timr 1y ago
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=schrodinger%... I've been nothing but polite to you.
816.
by timr 1y ago
> If I buy a cup of coffee, and the cost of the coup goes from $0.05 to $0.10, but the cost of coffee goes down from $1.00 to $0.95, the thing I buy did not get more expensive. The components of its cost changed. Great, prove it! You at
817.
by timr 1y ago
> We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would. N
818.
by timr 1y ago
No, I don't need to make assumptions about any of that. It's a complex interplay of factors (like any economic system), and everyone has their own reward function. I'm just saying that if the marginal driver were still choos
819.
by timr 1y ago
Again, in case it's not clear: I was being whimsical. I'm obviously not resting my opposition to this on a one-off argument about dust in my apartment. I personally don't think the PM2.5 thing would justify the implementation
820.
by timr 1y ago
It's clearly a new tax. It didn't exist for the entire history of the city before. So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented.
821.
by timr 1y ago
Every delivery truck that comes into the city is charged a tax. It's not a matter of "evidence" -- it's how the law works. This cost is passed on to consumers. I didn't say "gets more expensive on net relativ
822.
by timr 1y ago
I was not being serious, but as you've repeatedly said, there's no evidence for the argument you're making. A three-month change at the beginning of the year in PM2.5 is noise.
823.
by timr 1y ago
Just for starters: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... > An accountant discovered the discrepancy while reviewing the budget for new train platforms under Grand Central Ter
824.
by timr 1y ago
It's theoretical in the sense that it requires that you apply for it , and hopefully you'll get your money back someday. (...poor people being notorious for having lots of time for precise accounting and follow through on governm
825.
by timr 1y ago
> Congestion was already priced into all goods and services in NYC I agree! > instead of a tax that at least ostensibly will fund better transit. Telling me that the money will be set on fire by a public organization with good intent
826.
by timr 1y ago
I'm not seething, and I can assure you from the disgusting piles of city dust that accumulate in my apartment that the air is not cleaner in any way that matters to me.
827.
by timr 1y ago
> That's not true. There's a tax credit for low-income residents and a full waiver for disabled people. That's a fig-leaf argument. Yes, there's some theoretical tax credit that may or may not offset the costs for par
828.
by timr 1y ago
"Sure, Tammany Hall was corrupt, but the corruption was only a tiny amount per capita...and what a nice courthouse!"
829.
by timr 1y ago
I don't know, but you don't have any evidence for that argument.
830.
by timr 1y ago
Elasticity of demand is not magic, so yeah, making something more expensive will likely reduce demand. While I have no doubt it is a success if you consider only reduced traffic, there are other considerations that override that for me:
831.
by timr 1y ago
It seems to me that you’ve understood the point and are now just attempting to play games with code.
832.
by timr 1y ago
> Accusing a nation of something bad is precisely what their definition of anti-semitism includes. They literally say the opposite, right in the paragraph I quoted at the top. Yes, they give examples of criticizing Israel. But the point
833.
by timr 1y ago
Yeah, I’m not saying anything about the idea of screening someone based on the content of their thoughts (i.e. their social media feed). I’m only commenting about the purported unreasonableness of the definition of antisemitism. There are o
834.
by timr 1y ago
> > Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. > One does not entail the other. You can support our right to self-determination while
835.
by timr 1y ago
They go on to discuss more than a page of examples, all of which sound completely reasonable to me. Or perhaps you could just quote the very next paragraph, which is pretty specific: > Manifestations might include the targeting of the st
836.
by timr 1y ago
> Brad Lantern saw unidentified, masked, ununiformed men who refused to speak, had no legal documentation, and would not identify themselves to anyone carrying a man against his will. Brad Lander was at the man's trial for illega
837.
by timr 1y ago
Right. So your logic is: because someone, somewhere, once did something illegal while dressed as a police officer , we should interfere with every arrest, everywhere, because they might be fake police? Or are you just restricting this logi
838.
by timr 1y ago
> If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it? Sure you do. Call the police. Record it, capture the details for
839.
by timr 1y ago
> The ununiformed, masked men that refuse to identify themselves and won't show any legal documents have unilateral authority and cannot be questioned. Do not resist. Again, Brad Lander was not being detained. He had nothing to do w
840.
by timr 1y ago
> Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Man

More ›