bingohbangoh

A key difference is that at least one isn’t competing for limited housing with offshoring. That is the number 1 driver of the affordability crisis atm.

I’m a fan of the YIMBY types but we aren’t building enough annd, until we are, it’s a problem to put more people where we already have little housing!

> To keep tax revenue equal, property taxes for those who purchased recently would go down, and property taxes for those who’d purchased in the past would go up.

That's what I'm saying _won't_ happen. The high property taxes as-is will stay high and previously protected properties will have their taxes shoot up. That is my prediction and nothing about the state of California, or the US broadly, suggests otherwise to me.

Do you think cities would make the taxes fairer (e.g. spread them out over more residents) or just raise taxes on the these previously protected properties?

My money is on the latter. Nobody is getting a tax cut if Prop 13 is repealed. Everybody's taxes will just continue to go up.

Do people really think that if we revoked Prop 13 that other taxes would go down with the new money from property taxes?

Or do we think that property taxes would go up while other taxes stay put?

This feels like the argument at play when people criticize Prop 13. Not saying it’s good but California hasn’t ever cut taxes meaningfully and I’m not convinced raising property taxes would solve anything. California would still be expensive to live in.

Many people in silicon valley truly Believe that AI will take over everything. Therefore, this is the last chance to get in so you better be working really really hard.

There's a palpable desperation that makes this wave different from mobile or cloud. It's not about making things better so much as its about not being left behind.

I'm not sure of the reason for this shift. It has a lot of overlap with the grindset culture you see on Twitter where people caution against taking breaks because your (mostly imaginary) competition may catch up with you.

I'm broadly in favor of RFCs but they need to be dictated from top-down. That's easier said than done.

Most RFC committee debates ime devolve into firing squads in which the presenter needs to answer every question with pin-point accuracy and perfect context from the asker. Otherwise, they look unprepared and the RFC is negated.

This is allowed to happen because everybody is a theoretical co-equal in the process. Thus, everybody wants to have their say. You'd hope people would read ahead of time but there's always somebody who doesn't yet feels entitled to ask pre-emptive questions. It makes for very combative discussions.

The exception is when a double-skip manager stops that from happening and lets the presenter "make their case" and walk through the whole RFC.

the phrase I've heard about LA is that its "a company town for creatives."

> This means that I have to try to guess the state of mind of the questioner rather than solve a logic problem

That is an excellent way to put it!

It explains why it appeals to non-math people. They are (usually) better at these more verbal-based games ime.

I agree.

It reminds me of the math "puzzles" on Twitter which go:

1 shoe + 1 shoe = 2

2 shoes + 2 shoes = 4

3 shoes + 2 shoes = ???

And the answer isn't 5 because a) we're not counting shoes and b) the shoe laces were different colors. There's nothing clever, it just teaches you to be hyper cynical and question every little detail which isn't relevant to either Math or the real world.

People really hate coding interviews but they now exist as a "stupid test."

Academia has a problem with possibly fraudulent papers and grade inflation. It is inevitable that companies won't trust the papers and grades/degrees like they did in the past.

this is an insane reply and proves why NATO never put nuclear weapons in russia-adjacent states like the Baltics

Nuclear war is not something to be lightly risked

So we all blow ourselves up and kill everybody? † To own Russia?

†: everybody == a lot of people, just to be clear

does nobody think this will risk nuclear war? Is this really a place we want to risk it? I'm amazed at the comments section here

Does anybody know the current status of this?

My understanding is that if you delete your Facebook they will, in fact, completely delete it. That's post Cambridge Analytica of course.

Couldn't you have bypassed them and used `yt-dlp` or something similar?

Why get Google/YouTube's permission at all about this?