|
Isn't that the poo poo the dude with robot ears from Grandma's boy wore
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
I think it's what the protagonist of Watch_Dogs wore. Only worse looking.  Obviously you want to look like the coolest hacker in modern pop culture, don't you? Buy yourself a tech shell and wear a turtleneck under it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:59 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
*lives in area where water never freezes outside* my jacket is augmented
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think it's what the protagonist of Watch_Dogs wore. Yeah, that was what I was wondering, too. Have they done any market research, or do they just assume that what they think is cool is also cool among people who have to go into debt to buy clothing?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
Someone must have been in Seattle or Portland and seen millennials walking around in 500 dollar Arc'teryx shells and thought, "Lets make that jacket, but without the bright colors and quality material - we will be rich!".
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
They're probably using the same approach as goth clothing, which is make stuff that looks weird and vaguely like what you'd see in a movie in the hopes that someone likes it and charge many times the material costs for it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They're probably using the same approach as goth clothing, which is make stuff that looks weird and vaguely like what you'd see in a movie in the hopes that someone likes it and charge many times the material costs for it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
I'm not talking about craft made stuff I'm talking about the mass produced stuff you can buy online that's made like poo poo and falls apart after ten minutes. It looks nice on the pictures but is badly made out of poor materials but people buy it anyway. I imagine it's common among alternative fashion in general but that's where I have the most experience with. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:11 on May 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
William Gibson himself wears Acronym and has name-dropped them on multiple occasions, they've been around for some time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not gonna vouch for the quality of that product line, but if I'm spending 300-500 on a jacket I'm gonna be pissed if it smells like petrochemicals and dissolves in water. Where as if you're buying that coat for 50-100 off of amazon or some Chinese company advert for facebook you kinda get what's coming to you.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
an acronym jacket costs like $2000 CAD. show me the difference in utility between an acronym goretex jacket and some other brand. oh you can't? that's because there isn't any and this is all about signalling tyvm
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Hardshell jackets are kinda nice in warmer climates where you get rain in winter. The problem is when you are charging Patagonia prices for night market quality goods, but I guess that's essentially silicon valley writ large.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:
This is a bit old but I just wanted to point out one thing. Airbnb has a system where travelers and guests get ratings and write-ups from the hosts, which does give people incentive to be courteous travelers. My girlfriend and I have used airbnb 5 times, and each time we tried to be conscientious and stuff because I wanted a good traveler rating.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
You know how many times I've ever filled in a loving feedback form? loving pay me if you want feedback. I'm not giving you that poo poo away for free.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:This is a bit old but I just wanted to point out one thing. Airbnb has a system where travelers and guests get ratings and write-ups from the hosts, which does give people incentive to be courteous travelers. My girlfriend and I have used airbnb 5 times, and each time we tried to be conscientious and stuff because I wanted a good traveler rating. In addition to what Cultural Imperial wrote, which is true -folks don't usually fill in those surveys without incentives. Hell I've only used yelp for example if getting a good deal or doing a favor for a restaurant/repair guy I use all the time. I don't put in the effort for every transaction. I add this: That's for the host/travelers. That doesn't address neighbors or other tertiary folks affected. Like the pissed off neighbors dealing with a lodger partying all night aren't factored in, and even if it did have some extra account thing like that, why on earth would I put in the effort to sign up for airbnb just to badmouth my neighbor or beachfan420 who made surf open hell for me?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Get the condo board or whatever to fine the gently caress out of the owner, then, if it's a recurring issue. I don't understand why someone would be a less than conscientious guest in a situation like that. I even try to avoid slamming doors (or letting a strong auto-close slam them for me) and talking loudly in hallways in hotels, because I know how annoying that poo poo is when you're jet-lagged or whatever and trying to sleep. Still, and I raised this point in another thread: is there a meaningful difference between an AirBNB and a month-to-month furnished apartment that I rent for exactly one month? I'm still going to be gone before you can do anything about whatever bad poo poo I might be doing, in all likelihood, and the laws permit month-to-month tenancy of this type in every jurisdiction I've ever seen. What's the minimum amount of time that one should be able to rent a furnished apartment for, and why? All the lines get blurred when you try to come up with a definitive answer, even if we can all accept that allowing private landlords to act as hotels for stays of less than a week is probably a problematic idea.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
As risky as Musk's high speed tube is, at least he's putting money back into the economy, creating jobs and advancing technology with his wealth. SpaceX is actually doing things and when the tube literally crashes and burns it will have gone from theoretical future poo poo to old failed idea.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Still, and I raised this point in another thread: is there a meaningful difference between an AirBNB and a month-to-month furnished apartment that I rent for exactly one month? I'm still going to be gone before you can do anything about whatever bad poo poo I might be doing, in all likelihood, and the laws permit month-to-month tenancy of this type in every jurisdiction I've ever seen. What's the minimum amount of time that one should be able to rent a furnished apartment for, and why? All the lines get blurred when you try to come up with a definitive answer, even if we can all accept that allowing private landlords to act as hotels for stays of less than a week is probably a problematic idea.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Unguided posted:As risky as Musk's high speed tube is, at least he's putting money back into the economy, creating jobs and advancing technology with his wealth. SpaceX is actually doing things and when the tube literally crashes and burns it will have gone from theoretical future poo poo to old failed idea. All told that kind of speaks to one of the biggest problems with the American economy now; even a guy like Gates or Jobs just kind of kept the billions and was like "gently caress yeah, top score!" Gates is at least being less of a shithead and ponying money up for charitable causes but even that's been questionable given how much he decides where the money goes. At least with SpaceX they're being all like "hey people want to go to space? loving right, let's go to space."
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
omg it looks like sheryl sandberg is going to gift the world an inspirational ted talk.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Funnily enough, there are laws. Those laws are restrictive enough that it might as well be "short term sublets are not possible (or worth trying to do) legally except in very, very specific circumstances".
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:an acronym jacket costs like $2000 CAD. show me the difference in utility between an acronym goretex jacket and some other brand. oh you can't? that's because there isn't any and this is all about signalling tyvm Okay, I'm all for making GBS threads on pointless techbro bullshit, but seriously? You're going to make a utility argument on fashion?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:Those laws are restrictive enough that it might as well be "short term sublets are not possible (or worth trying to do) legally except in very, very specific circumstances". …and your point is? Maybe there are good reasons short-term sublets are so controlled, and letting AirBnB run roughshod over all regulation in the space won't actually be a net benefit to society.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Funnily enough, there are laws. I know, but who's to say that 30-day rentals fix all the problems that occur with 29-day or shorter rentals? It's not clear to me that this is the case. You still have short-term, transient renters with little interest in the good of the community, you're still making them pay a premium thus making these rentals more attractive for landlords than unserviced rentals, and they still don't pay hotel taxes and whatnot because it's a tenancy, legally speaking. I'm okay with the laws, I'm just curious why 30 days is some kind of a magic number that fixes anything. Realistically the only thing I see it doing is decreasing demand because it's rarer for people to travel for a whole month.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I know, but who's to say that 30-day rentals fix all the problems that occur with 29-day or shorter rentals? It's not clear to me that this is the case. You still have short-term, transient renters with little interest in the good of the community, you're still making them pay a premium thus making these rentals more attractive for landlords than unserviced rentals, and they still don't pay hotel taxes and whatnot because it's a tenancy, legally speaking. 30 days is not some physical law of tenancy, it's a line that had to be drawn somewhere so decisions can be made more quickly and consistently. It could have been 27 days or 32 days, but 30 is a round number and close enough.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:18
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:30 days is not some physical law of tenancy, it's a line that had to be drawn somewhere so decisions can be made more quickly and consistently. It could have been 27 days or 32 days, but 30 is a round number and close enough. Yes, it's basically a month. But why is it a month instead of two weeks, two months, six months or a year? And does it do anything to ameliorate the negative externalities of short term rentals beyond simply lowering demand by forcing a greater investment on the part of the renter?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yes, it's basically a month. But why is it a month instead of two weeks, two months, six months or a year? Two weeks: long-ish holiday. Two months: probably a short term job. Unless one month creates unexpected problems it's good enough. PT6A posted:And does it do anything to ameliorate the negative externalities of short term rentals beyond simply lowering demand by forcing a greater investment on the part of the renter? That's the whole point. Less demand = less people doing it = the problem is more manageable.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Then why pretend it has anything to do with the issues of short-term tenancies? If it's simply about lowering demand, that's okay, but then why wring our hands about how short-term renters are going to be horrible neighbours, etc.? Also, it's still economically advantageous and you get more amenities and space by renting an apartment for one month even if you plan to leave after 20 days -- possibly even 14 days or less if you make use of the kitchen regularly instead of eating out -- so I don't think demand sinks as much as you would initially think.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Then why pretend it has anything to do with the issues of short-term tenancies? If it's simply about lowering demand, that's okay, but then why wring our hands about how short-term renters are going to be horrible neighbours, etc.? It's about the difference between a rented primary residence and a hotel. Living in an apartment building is not like living in a hotel, we are socially willing to accept worse conditions for the convenience of a short hotel stay, and these conditions would be detrimental to the regular tenants around a rental property converted into an Air B&B rental. Not to mention that it is not in the interest of the city, which is in the middle of a long term shortage of rental units and which has had to close their waiting list for public housing for up to 6 years at a time, to have them be converted into hotel rooms for profiteering purposes. Especially when the operators are trying to be 'disruptive', and thus refusing to obey the laws and taxes required for operating as a hotel. We've been over this several times.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's about the difference between a rented primary residence and a hotel. Living in an apartment building is not like living in a hotel, we are socially willing to accept worse conditions for the convenience of a short hotel stay, and these conditions would be detrimental to the regular tenants around a rental property converted into an Air B&B rental. I get this. I get why AirBnB is bad, I get why people don't want AirBnB units near them, I understand that it's doing bad things with regards to rental property shortages, I'm just trying to figure out why 30 days is the magical number where all of these problems vanish (or at least do so to an acceptable degree). It seems to be just about lowering the demand for short- and medium-term rentals by making them more expensive, since you must now rent the apartment for no less than one month. I understand that completely; I'm just wondering why a rental term of 30 days or more removes the issues associated with short-term tenants with no real connection to the community itself, or the issues with avoiding taxes and fees that hotels must pay. I would think you'd need a minimum rental term of at least two-three months to cut out transient renters that could visit these negative externalities onto the community. Maybe I'm biased because I have a job that allows me to work from practically anywhere, so I take longer vacations than most people, but I rented a furnished apartment for a month last year and there was functionally no difference between me doing that and doing the same thing through an AirBnB instead. I treated it like I would my own apartment, tried to be considerate to the neighbours, and all that, but I was still unemployed (in fact I was forbidden from working, being a foreigner with no work permit) and I was essentially contributing nothing to the community beyond typical tourism-related commerce. I was probably raising rental rates in that area too, since I don't know what the gently caress an average flat in Madrid would cost, furnished or unfurnished -- I only cared that it was cheaper than a hotel, gave me more space, and allowed me to leave all my poo poo there so I could travel light when I went to other cities. It was not my primary residence -- my primary residence was happily sitting empty on another continent. Again, the crux of the matter, which still has yet to be addressed, is how a minimum rental period of 30 days does anything to protect against the negative externalities caused by short-term tenancy. It only lowers demand, it does not actually solve any problems. You state we've been over this several times, but I don't think this question has been answered. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that AirBnB is good and should be allowed to run unrestricted; I'm just pointing out that, if anything, the current regulations allowing for a 30-day rental are not really sufficient to prevent the sort of negative externalities that everyone is concerned about.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
I'm just asking questions!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
I heard you guys liked tech geniuses so here's some TV to watch! PURE GENIUS quote: STUDIO: Universal TV/CBS TV Studios TEAM: Jason Katims (w, ep), Michelle Lee (ep), David Semel (d, ep) LOGLINE: Follows a young Silicon Valley tech titan who enlists a veteran surgeon with a controversial past in starting a hospital with a cutting edge, “new school” approach to medicine. CAST: Augustus Prew, Dermot Mulroney, Brenda Song, Reshma Shetty, Ward Horton, Aaron Jennings, Odette Annable APB quote: STUDIO: 20th Century Fox TV TEAM: David Slack (w, ep), Len Wiseman (d, ep), David Bernardi (ep), Dennis Kim (ep), Todd Hoffman (ep) LOGLINE: An enigmatic tech billionaire purchases a troubled police precinct in the wake of a loved one’s murder. Can this eccentric and enigmatic figure’s cutting edge approach fix the broken ways of these blue-blooded veterans? CAST: Justin Kirk, Natalie Martinez, Caitlin Stasey, Taylor Handley, Eric Winter
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Wheany posted:I'm just asking questions! Well, yeah. I think they're important questions. If we're going to address the problems associated with transient rentals in general, I don't understand why allowing month-to-month tenancy is something we should continue doing. Yet, by and large, no one seems to have a problem with it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I get this. I get why AirBnB is bad, I get why people don't want AirBnB units near them, I understand that it's doing bad things with regards to rental property shortages, I'm just trying to figure out why 30 days is the magical number where all of these problems vanish (or at least do so to an acceptable degree). It seems to be just about lowering the demand for short- and medium-term rentals by making them more expensive, since you must now rent the apartment for no less than one month. You're missing the point. Air B&B's behavior was flatly illegal in SF prior to the changes Arsenic Lupin linked. Rentals of 30 or more days are already covered under SF ordinances, which is why the 30 days, because 1 month was the set minimum for non-hotel rentals previously, and thus this was the minimum change they needed to be able to operate. You're being a pedant over an administrative detail that does not have any practical effect, and which you could have determined the purpose of by five minutes of slamming your face into Google. Here, this is even easier : http://sf-planning.org/office-short-term-rental-registry-faqs
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Maybe I'm biased because I have a job that allows me to work from practically anywhere, so I take longer vacations than most people Yes, maybe it's this. Most people in America get few enough vacation days that they literally can't take an entire month off even if they don't use any of them for anyone else. So, a month about does it. Of course the calculus changes if you can bugger off wherever for two months whenever you feel like it, but that is pretty drat exceptional so maybe we shouldn't decide what's a rational national policy based on your personal conditions?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I get this. I get why AirBnB is bad, I get why people don't want AirBnB units near them, I understand that it's doing bad things with regards to rental property shortages, I'm just trying to figure out why 30 days is the magical number where all of these problems vanish (or at least do so to an acceptable degree). It seems to be just about lowering the demand for short- and medium-term rentals by making them more expensive, since you must now rent the apartment for no less than one month. Your argument is "it doesn't solve 100% of the problem, only much of it, so it's worthless  ". Just because you're the rare exception who goes on holiday for over a month at a time doesn't mean 30 days isn't a useful cutoff. It doesn't have to be a perfect filter, it just has to make it sufficiently onerous for travellers to rent regular apartments, on average, less travellers do so.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Goons seem to treat anything requiring interacting with other people as an insurmountable hardship. Therefore asking someone to knock the noise off is doomed to fail, going to the condo board is impossible, and airBNB is awful for possibly hypothetically putting them in a position to have to deal with people. Also, San Fran density restrictions do way more to gently caress up its housing market than AirBNB ever could.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Read up on the line drawing fallacy. One of the major, major problems with making laws is that you must draw a line in the sand and say "everything over here is OK, everything over here is not" when it comes to this sort of thing. "But why is the line drawn at 30 days and not 35?" because it is. We can argue whether the line is in the right place until the sun explodes but the fact is it works based on current conditions and how people tend to rent space. Most people, like was said, don't go renting things for a month to go on vacation. The other thing there is that a person being there 7 days doesn't feel much like they have to give a crap what the neighbors think partly because that's how hotels operate. You're there shortly and people are constantly in and out. However somebody being there more than a month has to deal with it if they piss off the neighbors for almost 10% of a year. Kind of a bigger deal, especially if you're being there longer than a month. The 30 day mark is the minimum. Generally speaking somebody renting something for more than a month is going to do it for multiple months.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
As does rent control.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:46 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Goons seem to treat anything requiring interacting with other people as an insurmountable hardship. Therefore asking someone to knock the noise off is doomed to fail, going to the condo board is impossible, and airBNB is awful for possibly hypothetically putting them in a position to have to deal with people. i rather wouldn't deal with one group after the other of drunk douchebros trashing the place, no thank you
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2016 13:21
|
|