nicksellen
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
(most relevant, but dated, PR is https://github.com/Trustroots/trustroots/pull/1086)
(I also saw your comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219900)
But really, I want to contribute to the original project, and given I am not the original developer, it still relies on the them (and any other founders) to open up contributions. Fortunately, in this case, they have :)
As mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23219760 references is coming.
The verification issue though for import is a big one, we couldn't just trust a JSON file the user has uploaded to have real references, there would be nothing stopping them writing their own glowing references.
We're working on references :) I merged this PR yesterday https://github.com/Trustroots/trustroots/pull/1413, there is a bit more to work out for displaying them...
There is also a meetup feature already (see https://ideas.trustroots.org/2017/08/21/meeting-people-now-o...), it's a bit primitive right now, but it was a first iteration, and we've been discussing some next steps recently.
We are also open source! https://github.com/trustroots/ (with a node + react stack)
Restriction of housing is not limited to Government, housing developers also do it:
"[Kate] Barker reached a similar conclusion in her interim report, where she noted that in order to maximize their profits, developers control the rate of production and ‘trickle out’ no more than 100–200 houses a year from a large development. ‘This may not be desirable from society’s point of view,’ she wrote." (from https://www.annaminton.com/bigcapital)
Personally, I trust the reasons that a Government would limit housing more than I would a for-profit company who are probably operating in the interests of investors who don't live in the affected areas.
Even more than Big Government control though, I would prefer the people that live in an area to have the biggest say into how things are run.
That makes it sound like a definitive rule, but it's just a common convention.
If the U.S. pumps an endless supply of money into Haiti, how could Haitian banks hope to compete with their loan offers?
Kind of. It's useful to see the per distance and per population figures. You are likely to drive more when you are in the USA compared to Europe (due to the culture and bigger distances to travel) and this increases your risk.
If I was analyzing my total risk of dying in a road accident, both figures would play a part.
Maybe you can see the problem if I explain it in this way: you can become British (meaning "UK-ish"), but you cannot become English.
Not only is it technically wrong, but it also contributes to perpetuating the dominance of England over the other parts of the UK.
I try to clear midconceptions/misunderstands of other countries when I know better, I would invite you to do the same now you know more :)
Hopefully I can soothe some your resentment of my accusation too - I have been learning about Germany and the forms it existed in before the unification of the states in 1871 - the culture goes back a lot further than this, I am currently learning German and planning an extended tour by bicycle (when I have learnt enough) so I can get more deeply into this topic.
Although entire languages get it wrong - in German the UK is translated as "Großbritannien". Edit: they do have translation for UK ("Vereinigtes Königreich") but I've never heard it said/written yet... I think I'll start using it.
A worse version is when "England" is used to refer to the UK. It's very common, maybe less so in official contexts.
I don't think this is the framework for me.