I think catch-up sleep is just an excuse we grant ourselves for sleeping more on the weekends... we've been conditioned to feel bad for not feeling productive, so we need to grant ourselves special permission.
People typically have fewer kids as their society develops. Average age in the developed world is almost double of places like Africa. There is some evidence that slowing or decline in population is a reasonable expectation.
Also, from Wikipedia:
Low estimates suggest a decline
Moderate estimates suggest a plateau
High estimates suggest constant increase
Time will tell, and estimates suggest that the earth can comfortably support ~10bn
---
I don't think housing prices have much to do with population increase, but more to do with urbanization (as well as increasing wage gaps).
People are flocking to existing cities, and the more center you are the higher prices are.
This pushes people to the outskirts, which become more urbanized, which spreads urbanization through the same cycle.
>Lastly, the planet has trouble with us now... It's terrorism to suggest that 10 billion is just fine.
Calling it terrorism is a bit absurd.
It's totally possible (and even likely within our lifetimes), but that doesn't mean that there aren't huge logistical issues to overcome for it to be comfortable.
One of the main problems is that the world population is so widely distributed. We can already feed and house everyone, we already have more resources than what would be required... they're just not distributed appropriately (some due to hoarding, some due to supply chain barriers, political borders, etc).
It is because I didn't say it was "just fine" I said "can" as in "is possible" — which is objectively true.
...and even if I did say it was "just fine" it wouldn't be tantamount to terrorism because I was pointing out something that is very likely inevitable.
I'm not invoking 3 billion people by assuming one day they will exist.
I don't know if anyone's ever told you this, but you're being outwardly shitty when you have no reason to be. You're just throwing the word terrorism around disingenuously to get a rise out of people.
Your only point is that the suggestion of the earth supporting 10bn people is akin to terrorism (which you later amended to "intellectual terrorism"), which I'd argue is objectively disingenuous... and completely pointless.
This conversation has reached the point of unproductive a while ago.
I'm sure you'll try to bait me back into it, because you fit that MO, but you're on your own.
The Big Dig in Boston was originally estimated to cost $8 billion. People were upset about this.
There were multiple problems along the way.
It ultimately ended up costing $22 billion. People were also upset about this.
At the end of the day? It was an awesome project. They completely buried a highway that cut through the city, and added a ton of green space downtown (The Greenway).
The city is better for it. Taxpayers would never have allowed it if they had their way.
We need a similar program to revitalize the MBTA. It should be done regardless of the cost. I will happily pay more real estate taxes and highway tolls for the rest of my life to support it.
>At the end of the day? It was an awesome project.
That's not the problem people complained about though -- the project's eventual quality/utility.
The problem people complained about is the cost of the project -- and especially for overpaying for something that could be done for less.
And that (overpaying) is a big problem for several reasons:
1) The money could go to other projects to better the city.
2) The money could be spend on future maintenance of the Big Dig itself.
3) The past history of such costly projects (fat margins and corruption-driven extras) nips the public appeal and political will to build new infrastructure in the bud.
If the Big Dig could be had at 4B, or 8B as promised, or, heck, even 10-15, and ended up costing $22 billion, that's a huge problem -- regardless if it was cool once completed.
Especially if the completed project is only $8B cool, and not $22B cool, and the extra money went not in improving it, but in delays, corruption, and other BS.
Otherwise what you're saying is:
"If a project can be built the same for N, it doesn't matter if we pay 2xN or 3xN due to over-charging/corruption, as long as the project is useful".
As if the extra money don't come with lost project opportunities of their own...
Sure, I absolutely think better accountability needs to be in place — but people didn't want the project at $8bn either.
People complained before ground was even broken. Looking at the scope of the project in retrospect, as well as the known unknowns, I'm surprised anyone thought it would cost $8bn ($22bn seems too high, but I'm just an interested layman).
It is a great project and allowed the city to expand into places that were very inaccessible (south boston). Having a second tunnel to the airport is actually the best part in my opinion.
People here are VERY untrusting of any government projects because of this project. See the Olympic bid that was supposed to have all sorts of public sector improvements rejected (well who rejected who is another story)
But traffic on 93 (the tunneled highway) is back or worse than pre-upgrade levels (some of the worst traffic in the country here in Boston), the public transit promised as part of the project is finally being worked on (green line extension) but it all seems like its not enough. Housing prices in the Boston area are at SanFran/NYC levels.
We need more infrasturure in boston. We have good proposals (North-South rail link, south shore rail) but lack a governor /politicians who will be honest and tell people they need to pay for this stuff.
Public transit is so bad here that a running club raced one of the green line trolleys (I'll let you guess who wins)
less constructively: taxpayers who complain about bad infrastructure but who don't want to pay taxes to fund better infrastructure can shut the fuck up.
please, <municipality>, take my money. build me a decent public transit system and provide high quality services.
It's impossible to pay for everything. The way you talk you want unlimited funds spent on public transportation - but then what happens to all the other expenses? Just don't fund them?
> but who don't want to pay taxes to fund better infrastructure can shut the fuck up.
Or maybe, they want limited funds spent. There is nothing at all wrong with that.
Can't speak for everyone, but the consensus here in Massachusetts feels like "I don't use the MBTA so I don't want to pay for it in taxes/tolls." (Surprise, we also have a massive congestion problem because our population increases 300% during the workweek).
It's the I got mine and fuck the rest mentality. People always ignore that infrastructure benefits everyone (and in this case public transit improvements are MASSIVE for the lower classes).
Yes. Everything green here was once under a highway. It completelpely changed a major portion of the city and opened up routes for other parts of the city to become more developed.
If you want to put the Panama Canal through Boston it's going to cost astronomically more than $24bn — the logistics (not to mention the requirements and processes of the time period) are entirely different.
The grandparent poster compared the cost of the big dig to the cost of the panama canal to in an attempt to show that the big dig was overly expensive.
This parent poster is pointing out the fallacy by hypothesizing that the Panama canal in Boston would be way more expensive than the Panama canal in Panama, thereby showing the error in the grandparent post's reasoning.
Agreed on the MBTA. However rather than build new lines (e.g. Green line extn) let's put in overhead electrification on the commuter rail and let Green line style trolleys go out to the all of the 'burbs inside 128.
Also, we have tolls on the tunnels & bridges around Boston for the locals, but those who live in southern NH (presumably avoiding MA taxes) and are pounding up and down 25 miles of I-93 every day don't pay anything. They probably don't even buy their gas in MA.
Put electronic tolling on I-93 & Route 3 just south of the NH line. That would raise funds for the MBTA and spread the cost to those actually using the roads.
I don't disagree. We should have a lot more streetcars and (everyone has their own priorities). Reducing traffic from the suburbs would be massive.
There's also a huge amount of inequality in Boston proper due to the removal of the elevated Orange Line (which is inadequately serviced by the Silver Line and other busses). The most used bus routes (which mostly serve Roxbury and Dorchester) should be converted.
Agree on the NH front too. I don't envy the people who commute from NH to Boston every day, but they should absolutely be tolled.
I think more radical traffic easing will need to happen eventually. Do we really need hundreds of thousands of people commuting in to sit in some cubicle downtown from 9-5? Shit no. I'm not sure what needs to happen there... reducing property taxes on business that shift their working hours or let their employees work from home X amount of days per week? I hate reducing corporate costs, but what else would convince them?
I think streetcars are the solution, they can co-exist on downtown streets with cars then have their own lines when there's space. Did you know there used to be a streetcar that ran from Medford Sq. to Stoneham Sq. through the fells?
There's little to be gained by politicians saber-rattling and telling people to not use cars when there are no practical alternatives. If you don't live within the inner 1-2 city ring around Boston and you're not on the commuter rail, you have no choice but to drive.
I don't think that many are. Most people I know who live within ~3 miles use the T, bike, walk, bus or even rollerblade! (parking is expensive in the city). It's the middle to outer 'burbs that have to drive (unless you live on the commuter rail).
Interestingly, plenty of people who live in towns on the commuter rail do use it, but they all complain about packed trains, crappy service when it snows and of course if you miss one, you're waiting another hour for the next.
I'm less than sanguine about the fact that you and your people compel others to bear the burden of your personal value choices.
As well as paying for the burden of the corruption involved in Bostonian construction projects that (at least) doubled the cost of what it should have gone for.
>As well as paying for the burden of the corruption involved in Bostonian construction projects that (at least) doubled the cost of what it should have gone for
Is there evidence of this? Everyone says it but it always seems extreme (Seriously? $11bn to corruption?). I think there's credence to the fact that these projects often go to the lowest bidders, and in this instance there was a lot of rework done to compensate for cheap materials and poor workmanship.
>you and your people compel others to bear the burden of your personal value choices
New Hampshire is an hour away if you don't want a tax-supported public infrastructure.
I don't think anyone's using that excuse to justify working for Google, I think they're just saying that a small number of people quitting Google isn't nearly enough to stop them.
Google employs at least 20k engineers. I'd be shocked if 100 quit over this news.
Google could be murdering kittens to cool servers with their blood and you could probably find enough competent engineers to keep 10 Google's fully staffed. The vast majority of people do not give two shits.
An infinite number of people working for Google cannot stop me from not working for them. Which makes no difference to them and all the difference to me.
Everybody dies anyway, nobody is remembered, or gets to keep anything; we can build what we want, end result is the same. The only brief moment of reality is our experience of the universe and the kind of life we lead, and if what you claim true for "the vast majority of people" was true, IMO that would just mean the vast majority are deeply sick and probably frightened shitless of death. That'd no doubt be very important for them, but how would it matter for me? Should I jump into their pool, to drown alongside them and make them feel better?
I agree with you. I wouldn't work there. All I'm saying is that people aren't making as big a deal of a deal as they should be if they want it to change.
I'm also saying that people who are saying this will hurt Google or make it hard for them to hire new people are flat-out wrong.
You’re missing the point. It’s not about whether or not you can pat yourself on the back on your deathbed for not working for google. The point is that if we want to make a meaningful difference to stop google, it takes more action than inaction.
All it takes is for a few good people to do nothing...
By leaving Google, one of the most powerful tech companies in the world, the engineers are lowering the mean moral compass of the engineering base.
Additionally, leaving a secure, well-paid role in political protest takes a certain amount of privilege. My father left an amazing job in protest over immoral actions and I can assure you that it had huge financial impacts on my life growing up. I respect him for his decision and I like to think I'd make the same one, however, I can understand how people even less fortunate aren't making political choices with their employment.
> By leaving Google, one of the most powerful tech companies in the world, the engineers are lowering the mean moral compass of the engineering base.
Good.
It's not like a good, ethical developer is going to change things from the inside. Companies are not democracies, they are dictatorships.
So what if Google has no good and moral developers left? At least it will become more obvious what Google truly is while the 'good' developers can make a positive contribution elsewhere. It was clearly never going to happen at Google anyway, not with a incentives a publicly-traded company has.
I would much prefer Google to be manned entirely by the kinds of people I wouldn't dream of inviting into my home. I'm already against the company's existence, so Google having nobody left with a shred of integrity or backbone would make it a whole lot easier to argue for the company's demise, in whatever shape that may come.
> So why shouldn't RoW have an input on the selection process?
Laws against treason and foreign manipulation of elections exist so that foreign nations don't conquer and kill us all. There is no doubt Russia and many other nations want to do that. I guess that's not a good enough reason for you? Do you have a self-preservation instinct? Do you want to live? There's a few really good reasons not to treat advertising for elections like advertising for toilet paper. It's literally a matter of life and death. Lying about how effective your toilet paper is, is not.
This type of propaganda is typically misleading in that the sources and claimed intents are flat out lies (Advertising is regulated against this too).
They're not saying "Russia wants you to vote for Trump" — they're doing things like sowing discontent and divisive rhetoric. The current propaganda efforts are absolutely fueling a lot of the divisiveness in the US right now. It's dangerous.
You think it would be a fair election if Xi Jinping could drop a trillion dollars in the US to advocate for his favorite candidate?
There are only about a dozen states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back — all of the states you're referencing are on that list. California specifically has been a donor state for more than 30 years.
I'm not sure how this is hoarding in any sense of the term. California is something like 40th when it comes to the ratio of federal assistance received to federal tax paid.
California is also in the top 15 states when it comes to tax paid per capita.
I guess if you wanted to complain you could pick on California's federal tax revenue ratio to Gross State Product — which is middle-of-the-road compared to other states. And even then, you're talking about 25 states that are worse off... and I think only 1 or 2 of those states are so-called "donor states."
If you're looking for personal biases... I don't even live in California. Outside of the weather I really kind of hate it there... but I'm having a really hard time finding any information to support your argument. I'd like to rag on California here... but if taxation is your primary concern then there are 30+ states that are larger priorities.
I'm not sure what your source is, or which numbers you're looking at specifically — but it feels like you're picking cherries to grind your axe.
I'm also curious about which state you think is setting the ideal example in this regard. If California is doing so poorly in your eyes... who is getting it right?
My point is that at a state level, Californians and New Yorkers practice the same kind of wealth-capture and tax-minimization on investments that they frequently critique from businesses.
That if they really believed in financial equity, they'd reshape their own privilege before insisting that they have a right to collect money from others (eg, raising taxes) or harping on the privilege of others (eg, corporate practices).
I understand where this comes from, but this line of reasoning tends to be very disingenuous.
I don't blame businesses for taxing advantage of our tax system (I would too), but I don't think they should be able to.
You can be an advocate for ending something while also taking advantage of it. There are a multitude of complicating factors and a business, just like a state, is going to prioritize itself before others (put your oxygen mask on first before assisting others).
This is highly political as well. These states already give more to the federal government than they take, and the states on the opposite end of the spectrum are also the states that fight against federal taxes entirely (which is some special form of irony).
This isn't a case where leading by example is going to inspire change (a billionaire voluntarily paying more taxes isn't going to either).
Leadership in Mississippi isn't going to look to California and say "wow they're really walking the walk" and start paying more federal tax.
You can extend this to just about anything if your goal is to be nothing but a total shitheel.
Do you believe in Democracy? Well guess where most of your computer components were manufactured! In countries without democracy. Guess you must hate freedom.
Do you think the US would be smart to denuclearize first to set an example for other countries? Would you die for that belief?
