thrwy_ywrht

It's also silly to discount the value of non-liquid equity to zero, unless you think there is literally zero chance of experiencing a liquidity event.

> some female prisoners in Washington state wanted to know how many male prisoners had been transferred to women's prisons

This is such an incredibly bad-faith and transphobic representation of the case that I can only conclude you are intentionally trolling. Even if you believe that trans women should not be housed in prisons with cis women, it is beyond bad faith choose the words you chose to use.

> people who are just plain nuts

Are you suggesting that it's "plain nuts" to be against private ownership of land?

> It's no different than evangelicals who try to impose their morality on everyone else

Are you trying to suggest that there aren't certain words it's inappropriate to use in certain types of writing?

> Could a better thought out measure achieve the same goals? How would you do it?

It's a problem that needs to be solved on the supply side. Trying to solve it on the demand side is like trying to damn a river with a sieve.

>With the current plan, the city is going to be a city with super high density combined with ultra low density and very little in-between. In other words, it will be full of wonderful enclaves for the wealthy, and sardine-can housing for everyone else.

For ease of searching, this phenomenon is often called the "missing middle" problem. And it sucks, because as the already-high-density areas get more and more dense over time, it just reinforces the fear of density that people in the low-density neighborhoods have, because it confirms their prior belief that density means 50 story condo towers, and only 50 story condo towers.

Chicago is a wonderful counterexample to this - lots of neighborhoods are a mix of SFH, SFH with ADUs, MFH with 2, 3 or 4 units, and small 4 or 5 story apartment buildings, with nary a condo tower in sight.

This comment is indistinguishable from satire.

>The fact that you can take out a loan

You can take out a loan in crypto that's fully secured against some other crypto. It's turtles all the way down, and has zero relevance to what most people think about when they talk about taking out a loan.

I know HN is not the place for glibness, but literally: just build more homes. Everything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Zoning reform is the answer.

>In many countries, including Europe, new properties are quickly snatched by investment

Demand for housing is not infinite, and supply of capital is not infinite. Building more units will always help. The quantity of units which are bought and then kept empty long term is tiny in relative terms.

>If someone clicks your ad and buys the product during that session, you know the ad worked

This is not as clear as you make it seem. Let's say there's a hypothetical product that a consumer only buys once every 5 years. If someone clicks your ad and then immediately buys the product... what if they would have bought it anyway, tomorrow, or 5 minutes from now, without the ad? How can you test that counterfactual?

If I buy cat litter online once a month every month for 5 years by going to example.org/catlitter -- but then they decide to start advertising on facebook, so now I click the facebook ad once a month to buy cat litter from the same site, are the ads "working"?

>How about I make an app that encourages users to snap pictures of people in public (totally legal) who are eating a big mac?

You eating a big mac isn't a threat to me, my family or my friends.

This attempt to portray all speeding as some kind of victimless morality crime is truly bizarre. Speeding is more akin to firing a gun into the air and then crying "Why are you persecuting me? I'm not harming anyone"

>anything which normalises surveillance by citizens on citizens is a death spiral for society

FWIW, speeding causes actual deaths of members of society

But I don't think this is the solution. The solution is better road design (road diets, narrower lanes, etc)

>It's going to hurt even more to find out they really don't enjoy your company as much as you thought they did

This is the crux of the issue. There are many people who often feel like cancelling on plans, but it is absolutely not because they don't enjoy their friends' company. It might be because they have a mood disorder, or chronic fatigue, or social anxiety, etc etc. The whole reason someone might want an app that lets you cancel on plans, but only if the other person also wants to cancel, is because it's almost impossible to express this feeling to someone without that person drawing the conclusion, to some degree, that you enjoy their company less than they thought.

If you genuinely don't enjoy spending time with someone, that's a much easier problem to solve.

>The point of the article is that it's babyish to be so fragile that a friend cancelling plans causes you great pain, or so guilt-ridden that you can't bring yourself to cancel.

My reading of the scenario is not that the person is too "guilt-ridden" to bring themselves to cancel - it's that they only mildly want to cancel, for frivolous reasons. They want to find out if the other person also mildly wants to cancel. The point is, in many relationships it is simply not possible to find this information out, because asking "how much do you want to keep our plans" in and of itself reveals that you want to cancel.

You can't measure how much the other person truly wants to cancel, because attempting to take the measurement will alter the outcome.