|
on the left posted:The "stop pretending it is a quaint little city with nice old houses" is a huge hurdle to accepting any sort of rational solution. Also, the people who hate the highly-educated tech workers are probably going to feel pretty miffed if a bunch of highly-educated planners and civil engineers start objectively re-engineering the city. This sentiment is hilarious though. Leftist locals are rejecting central planning! They should just admit they are rear end in a top hat regionalists and are no better than Southerners complaining of Yankees, etc.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:OC, still holding down the title as Shithole of SoCal. East San Bernardino is worse...and apparently Shasta is the shithole of NorCal?
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I have no doubt it will be appealed, but even if the appeal is successful it's a bad sign. Read the decision, it's pretty short: http://www.scribd.com/doc/229021741/Vergara-v-California As most of you should know, if any federal law (or state law for some states) is quasi-racist in the US it gets auto-overturned because of the 14th Amendment (and corresponding portions of state constitutions). The interesting part of this decision is the idea that teacher quality directly affects student outcomes. This is the product of research by economists like Raj Chetty and Tom Kane (expert witnesses here). Anyway, this is just a lower court decision, but still an interesting result of social science research.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
^^^^^ This is interesting because kids technically have a "right" to computer-based education if they learn more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I think everyone knows the buses themselves aren't the problem. They've just become the symbol of the problem, however misguided. I think most people understand it's not the buses themselves, right? It's like, you know, like how SF has like the highest income inequality in the country, and median market rent for a studio apartment is above 2.2k a month. People are really stupid then. I can assure you, huge increases in demand for property is caused by capitalists (both foreign and domestic), not rank-and-file tech workers. Also hasn't the recent Piketty publicity taught everyone that wealth inequality is far more important than income inequality? Tax the capitalists! High income workers are a smoke screen. Edit: This kind of populist thinking has soured me on American leftism in general. Crap like food deserts causing obesity, biking being the solution to urban planning, excessive marijuana consumption being "cool" and "safe," etc. Grow up people! Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jun 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
This guy sounds like an idiot, and will lose this fight, but why can't the city just implement more limited-time nonresident parking?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where do you suggest they implement those parking spots? Removing residential parking or adding more parking spots? SF provides one of the most amazing parking availability APIs. I'm at a loss as to what this guy is doing. Does his app secretly signal when someone is leaving a meter or something?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The app works like this, you parked somewhere and right before you leave you whip out your app and people who are looking for spots near you have bid a dollar amount for knowing the next spot. Highest bidder wins and the app tells them where your spot is and you get the money minus a cut. Okay, so it's people selling off their spots when they leave. Obviously that is illegal. Interesting question: would it be illegal to remove the bidding part, but to make it social? I.e. to alert friends, goons, etc. that you will have a spot free?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
withak posted:SF already has a free app for metered spots that can direct you to an open space. I didn't know this! Okay so this guy is a pure clown.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Forceholy posted:In other news, California is close to becoming the first state to pass a clear sexual consent bill into law. This bill is bizarre, it's codifying the idea that one should have to prove a negative in cases of suspected rape. Thankfully it's confined to college campuses. I feel bad for those kids though. Edit: Actually, I would go so far as to say this bill is terrible. It's trading off due process rights for universities' public images, and that's really sad. Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Nope, you're wrong. This is a great bill, because it ensures that rape victims have an effective avenue of prosecution. Instead of getting into a he-said/she-said back and forth, prosecutors can identify the lack of affirmative consent and pursue a conviction. This doesn't fix rape culture and male sexual aggressiveness, but it isn't meant to. It provides specific help to rape victims and will hopefully serve to deter future rapes by establishing a bright line policy of explicit legal liability. Encouraging sexual partners to get explicit consent is a win for women and progressive culture. This is not a criminal statute, just guidelines sent to schools. So, it's actually terrible, as it is further turning schools into kangaroo courts. Also, I'm not sure how this policy change will deter rapes or increase convictions. The "he said / she said" problem still exists.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Keeping in mind study after study says it costs the city less to flat-out house the homeless than to treat them poorly. This is not always true. It's cheaper on a societal level, yes. But costs are often paid through many different levels of government (police and fire which are local, healthcare which is private/federal, housing which is local/federal, etc.).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yeah I'm aware but nobody gives a poo poo beyond shuffling folks somewhere else. I don't think this is true. Sure, there are political costs here to providing "handouts," but I think if one level of government faced all the costs and benefits of helping the homeless, something would actually happen. Also, keep in mind that LA is in the wrong here, no Lancaster. LA can't effectively manage it's homeless population, and so some of the homeless migrate to other areas to receive services. Obviously, Lancaster doesn't want that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Are homeless people the responsibility of the city they were born in? The one they lost their home in? The last place they claim residence? I don't think any level of government is formally responsible here. Ideally, the federal government would be more responsible. Since they aren't, larger cities with the resources to offer services should be more responsible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Yep, that's kinda the thing. I mean, federalism is the root of tons of American social problems. So, homeless people dying is the "price of freedom" or something.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Voting in CA has become a parody of itself, right? There are at least 100 decisions to make, and many of the offices are nonpartisan (including all the elected judges). I resorted to voting for whatever candidates the local county Democrats endorsed for the most part, but I still can't make heads or tails out of some of these local propositions. They seem like petty political slap fights that stakeholders pushed off to voters to give them some semi-random chance of winning.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Well local government's only real discretionary powers are issuing bonds, deciding which friend to award contracts to and rejiggering property regulations so someone can make a quick buck. It only makes sense that the things that get put up for referendum are petty and/or confusing zoning adjustments without justification (because they have to leave out that the real reason is to forbid any competition from opening near the mayor's brother-in-law's restaurant or whatever). Right, also local news/papers don't really exist anymore (they do, but they are terrible), so it is impossible to get the real dirt on local politics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, there is already a university administrative system that is held to different bounds, this law didn't create the system. Is your argument is that universities shouldn't be able to punish anyone for any actions they take, and that only legal action should be the acceptable response? Do you believe the same for businesses? State universities (which this law covers) probably should not have extrajudicial punishment -- they are an arm of the state.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:That kangaroo court can do the exact same thing with allegations of cheating, plagiarism, violating the honor code in some other way, or even selling your own autograph. Not every punishment in life is a criminal sanction, subject to reasonable doubt and whatnot. Honor code violation trials are BS too. Students are paying customers -- they deserve their day in civil court when a school tries to unilaterally break a contract.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You realize that you agree to the terms of the honor code et al when you enroll at the university, right? Its part of the contract you sign to go to the school. It has nothing to do with CA, so I'll drop the argument. But it's absolutely bullshit that as a customer to a government department or private corporation, you can be bound to participate in private arbitration. Maybe you agree with with AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Good job confusing giving up the legal right to sue and contracts having termination clauses in them. Yeah, it's totally a legit termination clause when one party can run a kangaroo court to declare that the other party has fulfilled the terms of the clause...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
I voted against Prop 46 but I think you are a tremendous idiot if you became a physician thinking your profession was not facing huge increases in regulation over the next generation. The writing has been on the wall for some time. Should have stuck with creating apps or consulting or something that pays well but the government doesn't give a gently caress about.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Lol, it's not the "crab mentality" because physicians are managers/professionals, not workers. You wonder why regulation treats nurses differently than physicians? Because nurses are workers! Edit: That's not to say that physician satisfaction is not important - it absolutely is, but the US needs cheap care for a ton of increasingly older people. And, it has to keep them happy (as in the case of malpractice). So, a spotlight is now being shone on your profession, because an increasing proportion of Americans are patients (as America gets older and sicker). Patients vote, so you're kind of screwed, sorry. Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Employee class has nothing to do with what crab mentality is or how it's applied. Regardless, physicians are not administration/management, so even by your own tenets that statement makes no sense. Listen, if physicians want to relinquish their ability to diagnose and treat and instead only follow standard protocol, they can become workers and unionize. Until then, they will be regulated as professionals. Does being a professional kind of suck? Yes, at least workers and capitalists are singular in their goals to make money. Professionals must balance professionals ideals as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Lol, you are absurd - go ask any MD/PhD which degree they thought was harder.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Also, professions rise and fall. It was more noble to be part of the clergy or the military than of medicine 150 years ago. Now it's the opposite. So it goes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:How in gently caress did such an unabashedly good prop get on the ballot and pass? You can keep being cynical. The Democratic machine in CA supported this measure wholeheartedly because they (1) currently control executive branch, and (2) Jerry Brown's government is going to lose it's prisons to federal receivership unless they reduce overcrowding by 2016 (this is the final extension, I think). So, it's really about cash and federalism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:I have no idea, but my guess is that it's a combination of scarcity and location (graduate student housing is on-campus, and the layout of campus makes that a bigger deal than other places). Another factor is that they don't really pay us that much, so 60% of our income is not quite as crazy as it may seem at first. In any case, I don't really understand how graduate students afford those places on our salary, but apparently people do because as far as I know the housing fills up. $1000 a month for a 1 bedroom in CA is fine. The real issue is that grad students in the UC system without extra grant funding make like $18K a year.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:For one bedroom with a shared bathroom in a four bedroom apartment? For the most part, no it isn't. Don't know the Santa Cruz market, but I went to school in LA and Berkeley -- $800-900 a month was the norm for such a set up. So, sure, maybe $1000 is pushing it a bit. enraged_camel posted:The solution is to not become a grad student unless your employer pays for it or you have a guaranteed job offer for when you get your degree. I don't really get this sentiment. As far as I know, no situation other than being a PhD student fulfills these requirements. Employers pay for tuition but not cost of living, and jobs are never guaranteed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
If you go all the way back to the financial crisis / CA's budget crisis 5 years ago, you'll see that the state substantially divested itself from the UC. The state chose K12 / prison / Medicaid funding over UC funding, mostly because of voter demographics (I think). Anyway, the only way to reverse the tuition hike trend is to raise taxes or push down costs in one of those other sectors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:The state did make some serious budget cuts during the crisis, but the UC system has more than filled the gap that was left through previous tuition hikes. This latest increase isn't out of necessity, it's because they've realized the demand is going to be greater than supply no matter how much they raise tuition rates, so why not go hog wild with it. Here's the current budget justification: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov13/f6attach.pdf There story is that the Master Plan forces them to accommodate all eligible CA residents as freshman, and now there are more college-ready students than ever (through improvements in K12 policy and immigration?). Anyway, the state cut funding to levels that couldn't sustain this access, and so the UC is forced to raise tuition or raise standards for admission. Edit: Basically the UC is screwed -- it is competing with private universities that have tons of private donors and huge endowments. The UC can cut staff or salaries, but that will just make the quality of their universities lower. They can raise tuition, but now the middle class can't afford it. The only way things can go back to normal is if the state robustly increases support. Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Nov 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's sad how California used to have a european style higher education for all system. Europe has a highly stratified educational system and much worse universities. Your point???
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
SporkOfTruth posted:All of these people are colossal morons because it's not even in the 40s yet. Jesus christ. Put on a rain jacket and use an umbrella. Lol you are super aspie. Wearing scarves is not a crime against humanity, SoCal residents can play winter if they want.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 06:00
|
|
|
UC is raising the minimum wage to $15/hr: http://universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-president-announces-15hour-minimum-wage Of course, TAs only make like $18/hr (http://grad.ucsd.edu/_files/financial/acad-pay/STURATES1415-Rev3.pdf). Does anyone else find this $15/hr stuff kind of insidious? Measures to make every aspect of middle class life (education, health care, housing, retirement, etc.) more affordable are ignored, but hey, poverty can be comfortable now!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:Is it an adequate solution to the problem of systemic wealth disparity in a country with little in the way of a social safety net? No. I mean, I guess? These increases in pay will just fall on the backs of students and faculty. The UC should be reducing nonacademic personnel, if anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Those greedy non-academic personnel who benefit from a minimum wage are truly the issue. Management too, obviously. But yes, all non-academics at the university are leeching off of students and faculty. Edit: Isn't this the Marxist viewpoint? Slobjob Zizek fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Nope, not at all. Students and faculty should get tuition discounts/lower grant overhead before initiatives like this happen. The UC system is in sorry shape and the faculty and students are really what drive it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Pohl posted:Edit: And people working at those places deserve to make a living wage. They deserve to feed to themselves and their children. They deserve to have an opportunity. The deserve to not just be maligned in life, but to actually have hope. Sorry man, people build systems, and everyone in that system is important, don't dismiss them. I think this is just an absurd viewpoint, but this isn't a thread for that debate. Cheers!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 06:14
|
|