metacontent

Would the results of trying to find agreement between a number of different Lisp style guides be useful or interesting to anyone other than myself?

This is just my own personal hair brained idea, but my own idea on the best way to reduce the price of housing is simply to make it harder for people to buy a home. Hear me out. I do not mean increase the price of homes. I mean to drive prices down, you must restrict peoples ability to buy a home.

Essentially, if you make it easier for people to buy a home, then you will end up with more buyers, when you have more buyers then the demand for the product is increased and that results in the price of the product to rise. If you restrict the buyers then there is less demand for the product, and less demand results in the price of the product dropping. If less people are able to buy, then less people are able to sell, if people can't sell then they will lower prices.

It is hard to restrict buyers for houses, the only way I've thought of that is possible is to increase the minimum down payment size. If the minimum down payment size was increased to something really big like 50% for a few years, that would drastically reduce the number of people that would be able to buy a home, and that drastic decrease in buying demand would result in a drastic decrease in prices.

Conversely, where I live the minimum down payment is 5% if tomorrow the gov were to say "we want to make it easier for people to buy a home, and so we are reducing the minimum down payment to 2%" that would mean that more people would qualify to buy a home. More people qualifying would mean that there are more buyers and buying pressure is increased, and increased buying pressure would result in rising prices. So lowering the minimum down payment size, while well meaning, would soon result in the prices for homes going even higher and we would be right back where we started with many people being priced out of the market.

Increasing the minimum down payment size would also mean people effectively get priced out of the market because they would be unable to afford the minimum down payment, but conversely, the prices of houses would fall drastically because of the decreased buying pressure. People would be forced to save for a bigger downpayment, but the total they would pay when they actually buy the home would be decreased.

I don't want to attack you, but its hard not to attack a comment like this. Building more housing won't solve the homelessness problem, building a lot more housing might lower prices a little bit which might mean that some middle class families might be able to buy a home, but that is about it.

Nobody is living on the streets in SF because houses cost too much money. If money was the only issue then they could easily move to a different town where housing is cheaper, there are many places to live that are cheaper than SF.

In my opinion whenever someone says the main problem is the price of housing they are saying it because that is their own personal problem. They want to buy a house, and they think the prices are too high. Why do they not mention unemployment? Or addiction? Or lots of other issues? Because those aren't their own personal problems, so they focus on the one thing that matters to them personally, and that's the price of housing.

I looked at that book, but I was worried about the Gtk part, the book is now a few years old, is the Gtk stuff still relevant? My worry is that Gtk seems to always be coming out with new versions and its hard to know whats still relevant and good.

Is that a valid concern or not?

No it doesn't "prove" it.

But if you look at his crimes, they are believed to include high target underage sex trafficking. Luring the rich and famous into compromising positions for the purposes of blackmail, or just simply supplying the rich and famous with the kind of degenerate and illegal things they desired.

So.. if you're a rich and famous or well connected person, and you are shown to have a relationship with a person like that, the only thing it can possibly lead to is a deeply disturbing insinuation.

Epstein was a monster, and he was supplying a huge network of monsters, we need to find out who they are and deal with them.

Vim, because it does what I need.

* Ruby is a nicer language than Python.

Not only that, it's cleaner, more flexible, and faster.

It's a shame more people don't think for themselves rather than just jumping on the PR bandwagon. But that's life.

* Raw performance

Last time I checked I think that Ruby is faster than Python, and people generally seem to be okay with Pythons speed so I don't really think Rubys speed is as huge an issue as people make it out to be. Also, if this project that the OP mentions eventually realizes it's potential Ruby could become substantially faster than it is today. It will never approach JavaScript or Lua speeds, but faster is always better.

* Runtime metaprogramming from hell, * Monkey patching

Isn't this really the users fault though, just because the language allows bad stuff to happen doesn't mean we should ever do bad stuff.

* Little presence outside web development

Do yo consider NetSec to be web development? Because I've noticed Ruby is fairly active in NetSec but it doesn't get talked about a lot. I've also heard that Ruby is used extensively in embeded devices in Japan but due to the language issue it isn't known or discussed anywhere else. I'm sure there are other weird little corners as well that Ruby is active in but that just aren't really know.

Apple established a lucrative unix based desktop by giving it away for free with cool looking hardware, but only after they made it big with the iphone.

If it wasn't for the iphone Apples "unix based desktop" would still be a blip, and probably a smaller blip than Ubuntu.