Anecdotally, my apartment building has 0% vacancy rate.
And a newer building across the street has at least 10 apartments vacant for the most of the year.
Anecdotally, i know quite a few boomers that own multiple properties (>3) in manhattan, some of which they rent some of which they keep vacant for when they want to come to the city
I feel like at least some % of apartments in the city are visibly vacant most of the time because they are just part time homes for the wealthy.
The research for this does account for pied-à-terres, which do exist in some number but are a tiny fraction of he total and mainly exist in a handful of Manhattan neighborhoods. There are only about 10K of these in NYC[1] which is 0.27% of the 3,644,000 total housing units in the city. This just doesn't seem like a real problem when the rental vacancy rate is shockingly 1.4%[2] (of the 2,183,064 total rental units).
I struggle to believe that pied-a-terres are less than 1% in NYC, particularly in the post covid era. Maybe paid off condos in NYC owned by people who also live in Florida aren't counted somehow? Seems like everyone with a net worth of $2.5mm has two properties.
My best friend's brother has a rent controlled manhattan apartment that sits vacant 80% of the time and is used as a crash pad for a rotating cast of ~12 people, what do you call that?
Why would you struggle to believe something that is accounted for in tax records and other city records?
The median household income in NYC is about $70k almost no one relative to the population has a $2.5mm net worth. There are only 350,000 people in NYC with a net worth of more than 1mm.[1] Anecdote is clouding your understanding here, the idea that there are tons of empty units in NYC is just another luxury belief, it stands up to 0 scrutiny.
A good friend bought her Hell's Kithen flat (read: condo unit) from a Japanese company. Years ago I had another friend who worked for a company that had a sizeable place in the Village.
There aren't that many. NYC housing data is sliced, diced, and studied by so many agencies, non-profits, think tanks, and so on that someone would notice. There's a marginal number of units that appear to largely unoccupied. Corporate and LLC ownership shows up in tax data and the totals are a drop in the bucket of the nearly 4 million units.
Yes, but you only need one unit per building to be over-bid and that then drives up the prices of other units in that building? It might not be an occupancy issue per se, but it doesn't help the overall residential market.
Housing exists in price bands more or less, so the thing you’re measuring has to be large enough to have an effect on the band. There’s a lot of research on NYC housing issues and no one has ever identified corporate housing as a contributing factor, so there’s a very high burden of proof on your claim.
Arms manufacturers do not actually start wars. While I understand why some people may find that line of work not aligning with your morals, there isn't you can really change within the company
Right. My point is that if you don't find that Google aligns with your morals, simply don't work for them. If you do, you've already violated your morals. Protesting your own employer just proves that on top of having bad judgment, you also have no loyalty. Two good reasons to be fired.
I have no loyalty to my employer. I like my workplace, and the work I do, and I think that the company treats employees well. However the relationship is entirely transactional.
Ok, good enough for you? All work is transactional. But I've fired high paying clients and quit high paying jobs because I didn't want to put my stamp on their politics, religion, or simply what their business model was extracting or selling.
I'm serious, have the balls to tell them you won't work for them because you consider them immoral. Take a stand. Something else will come along.
Having said all that I think if you don't quit then having an in-office protest without resigning is pathetic; it lacks the honesty of giving up your paycheck and reeks of entitlement.
Right. No one in military conflict can really claim moral superiority.
E.g., Nazis vs Soviets. While yes, I'm not here to dispute that Nazis were on the wrong side of history, the soviets committed a fair amount of atrocities including towards their own people. Same with pretty much any military conflict the US has been involved in (e.g. remember how the US shot down iranian passenger plane and refused to apologize?).
My point is, wars do not determine who is right, only who is left.
All politics should not be acceptable in some sense. As in it's fine to discuss your views with colleagues over lunch. It's fine to express concerns privately over appropriate channels.
If you disagree with the contracts your company takes on you can always quit. There is no need to make your coworkers feel threatened for just doing their job.
Statistically speaking some of my coworkers voted for trump. I ll never know. Some of my coworkers probably think abortion is murder. Some think that women should stay at home, or that being trans is a mental disorder. None of these are the things to discuss at work
iMessage has been one of the most successful delivery vector for these spyware attacks.
So, if you think you are a likely target of a state sponsored attack, best thing you can do on an Apple device is to turn on lockdown mode, turn off iCloud and iMessage, stop using keychain, use only a yubikey for all authentication, and restrict yourself to a limited number of essential apps on your primary device and use a dedicated burner device for all your throwaway browsing and communications, and erase/reset that device after every session. And still, assume everything you say and do online is fully compromised, because there are always system vulnerabilities that haven't been made known yet ('zero-day' attacks) and are being used to compromise highly targeted individuals. In the end, it is a very convoluted cat and mouse game.
Unless things have changed since I last looked, if those you talk to aren't also on iMessage, it feels like a net negative to use as you get inconsistent/negative behavior between contacts. From that end, it becomes sort of a moral issue with the clearly arbitrarily locked gates and poor experiences. So you disable and use a non-malicious and cross platform solution.
> Apple is malicious, but Facebook is totally okay?
This is such a bizarre comment to make, because OP never suggested that Facebook is "totally okay". You replied to them after their edit window passed, so they didn't say that and then edit it out either.
I'm in Europe, I haven't encountered anyone in my life who has used iMessage (everyone uses WhatsApp, now also Telegram/Signal), so I don't really have a use for it, when I wanted to try the weird AR emoji / heartbeat reaction message things with my partner we noticed we both had iMessage turned off, I guess it's like a setting that maybe we skipped during the phone setup? Not sure if it's on by default for some people.
imessage and rcs (and arguably mms, although that started as cost cutting) are backdoors for the legal protections on mining telephony provider metadata for marketing. with those two "opt in" (lol) techs, all safeguards are off.
Several CVEs in the past related to iMessage. And it has surprisingly high privilege. Since I seldom need it, turning it off is better for my security.
iMessage histories are backed up in the nightly automatic non-e2ee iCloud Backup, effectively backdooring iMessage’s “end to end encryption” by escrowing the plaintext to a not-endpoint.
Apple can read approximately everyone’s iMessages out of their backups. It’s not private or secure, and claiming it is end to end encrypted is misleading almost to the point of being actually false.
This is the same behavior as SMS if you have enabled “Messages backup.” If backup is not enabled you will not have a copy of iMessages stored in iCloud (though all compatible and configured devices will still receive messages).
This can be changed by opting in to the e2ee iCloud data service “Advanced Data Protection.”
Nope. Even opting into ADP, your iMessage conversations will still be backed up to Apple without e2ee - just from the non-ADP phones of all the people you iMessage with instead of your own phone.
iMessages are backed up in duplicate - once on the sender and once on the receiver. You can only control e2ee for half of it, so your conversations are still under surveillance unless everyone you message with has also turned on ADP.
Is there any E2EE messaging service, or network protocol of any sort, that doesn't suffer from this? If an endpoint is compromised in whatever way, it doesn't matter how encrypted the data is in transit.
You’ll note that this is regularly and frequently used by the FBI against domestic users (such as BLM protesters). Apple processes these FISA demands on over 70,000 user accounts every year, and the number is increasing. (That’s just the count for the warrantless FISA stuff - search warrants are a different (larger) figure.)
They also expanded it to allow them to search Apple’s data on people entering the US as visitors.
> The House also passed several other significant amendments. They included allowing the Section 702 program to be used to gather intelligence on foreign narcotics trafficking organizations and to vet potential foreign visitors to the United States; empowering certain congressional leaders to observe classified hearings before a court that oversees national-security surveillance; and expanding the types of companies with access to foreign communications that can be required to participate in the program.
Nobody remotely versed in this stuff would expect SMS to be end-to-end encrypted, though to be honest the more notable fact to me here is that Apple can read any plaintext in your backups. iMessage is an over the top messaging service more akin to WhatsApp or Signal than it is to SMS, so that is a more relevant comparison. I don't know if any of the clients store plaintext messages that would be backed up to Apple in a similar manner or not, but I'd hope at least the more security focused ones do not.
Apple makes privacy claims about iMessage including 'Apple can’t decrypt the data.', which is notably false in this (common) scenario, and requires a large asterisk on those claims, IMO bordering on making them unethical, period.
Albeit recent and optional, isn’t that a hole specifically fixed by the Advanced Data Protection option[0]? Granted, it doesn’t do much if your recipients don’t also have it enabled.
That wasn't the point of the question. The question was a hypothetical to test if there was any possible response that would've satisfied the original poster.
They're not suggesting to assume good intentions about the parties forever. They're just asking for that assumption for the purposes of the question that was asked
There is no satisfying answer if your actions before are not satisfying. The question implies that the original poster cannot be satisfied, and thus shift the blame implicitly. The problem remain not what the answer is, or how it is worded. The answer only portrays the actions, which are by themselves unsatifsying.
Can and do are two vastly different things. The assumption that data privacy can only be accomplished by no one having any access to data is ridiculous.
Of all the companies that exist right now, apple does a fair bit of work regarding data anonymization and access restriction.
Anecdotally, i know quite a few boomers that own multiple properties (>3) in manhattan, some of which they rent some of which they keep vacant for when they want to come to the city I feel like at least some % of apartments in the city are visibly vacant most of the time because they are just part time homes for the wealthy.