milkytron

I'll give an example of when I used a grocery delivery service two weeks ago.

I was landing from a flight and traveling home late on a Sunday. I also needed to go grocery shopping that night. I did not have a car at the airport, so my choices were either rideshare home for $70, or take the train for $10. The train takes about 30-40 minutes longer, but saves me $60.

If I did the rideshare, I could probably do the grocery shopping myself and get home a little bit later than when the train would get me home. Or I could take the train, order the grocery delivery, and then get home, unpack, and go to sleep. I chose to take the train and do grocery delivery. When I got home from the train, the delivery driver was walking up to my door with bags in hand. It worked out perfectly.

I could have taken the train and also done the grocery shopping myself, but it would have been very late by then and I had to be up early for work the next day.

People have suggested a wealth tax, but there are issues with that. Some want to tax assets, but there are issues with that.

How about removing property tax, and instead taxing land at a higher rate? The wealthy (top 0.1%) are continuously buying up as much land as they can. If we tax land based on it's value more appropriately, we will see more land being sold, more land being invested in (because property would be taxed less, and land more), and then more productive land as a result.

This would be politically unpopular amongst the rent seekers of our society, and likely have huge ad campaigns against it as a result. But the downsides compared to upsides see negligible for the public. More productive land, and more tax revenue from the owners of the land.

And then also Jimmy Carter's peanut farm vs the obvious endeavors of that the current administration has done.

Neat! I'm surprised my city of Lakewood, Colorado showed up. Of course the icon is of Casa Bonita lol

Until people care about this, there is no reason for our representatives to limit it.

From what I've observed, it likely doesn't matter.

I worked at a company that laid off all senior engineers in a single layoff. I was let go and found another job within a month.

I've heard of entire departments being let go because of shifting company priorities.

I imagine decision makers aren't usually evaluating each person based on performance, they're looking at organizational priorities and budgets.

I have some friends at the company I got let go of, and they are in shambles. Managers have reached out to me asking for me to rejoin. I'd be willing to bet they thought the juniors and mid levels would be able to take the place of seniors with the help of AI, without management fully understanding how AI should be utilized most effectively.

I haven't had LinkedIn since... 2014 I think.

I deleted my account after I got my first job offer and have never used it since.

If people dislike the site so much, I don't understand why they don't delete their account. Is there any value provided, or is it the fear of missing out on potential future value?

Ah, that makes sense

This seems to be in contradiction with the first amendment

I think if towns and cities want to be more economically resilient (both privately and publicly) they really need to think about reducing car dependency.

Although, implementing such changes are generally unpopular for those that are already car dependent.

The part that still bothers me so much about the US vs Swartz case is that JSTOR didn't pursue civil litigation against Aaron. It was the US government that pursued him.

There was little for the government to lose in the case. In a case vs Meta, at the scale it has reached, it could have wide ranging economic implications limiting the investment in AI, which the US is absolutely not willing to pursue at this point in time (or possibly ever).

Basically, being a rich public company provides legal advantages when the US government has similar goals.

The whole thing is incredibly sad and exposes the hypocrisy of the US court system and government as a whole.

RIP Aaron.

The Flip and Fold are. I see them available on the Motorola US store page.

Riding with other people is _a_ problem, but I don't think it's the primary problem for why transit isn't used in the US.

Imo, the biggest problem is that of convenience. Convenience (time), cost, comfort, and (perceived) safety are the factors people use to make transportation mode choices.

If buses aren't prioritized in traffic above single occupant vehicles via dedicated bus lanes, signalling, etc. then they'll always be slower than a car because of the additional stops. Frequency is also a consideration that factors into timing, as well as transfers.

If any US city wants to get people onto transit, they need to prioritize transit above less efficient modes, amongst other things.