Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

Merchants are still going to need to accept Visa/MC if they want to accept payment from international customers and banks are still going to have to offer Visa/MC options for international commerce and for Americans traveling abroad. You'll never get most of the world's banks to upgrade to some new unified system. Hell, banks here in Japan just recently started to push debit as a pretty universal option. My bank didn't even offer a debit card until 2019.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

James Garfield posted:

Vacant housing is disproportionately in dying rust belt towns and rural areas where property values are low. The "proactive measures" to deal with housing costs are building more of it - waving a magic wand to eliminate landlords wouldn't fix it because the metro areas where people want to live still wouldn't have as many places to live as they do people who want to live there.

San Francisco has 40,000 empty units.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/S-F-has-40-000-empty-homes-Would-taxing-them-16819901.php\

San Francisco counted 7,800 homeless in their last count.

https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population

Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

James Garfield posted:

I'm not sure what your point is. If the San Francisco government eminent domained some of those and gave them to homeless people it would fix that problem, but it would not do anything to fix the housing shortage as there would still be many more people who want to live in San Francisco than there are places for them to live. The original post I responded to was about housing costs, not homelessness.

My point is that empty housing is not limited to "dying rust belt towns" as you put it. Homelessness is tied pretty directly to housing costs and the fact that SF has 40,000 empty units shows that landlords are perfectly willing to let units sit empty to keep rents high. They could house every single homeless person in the city and still have more than 30,000 units available for rent. If there were empty unit taxes or other anti-landlord policies it would do a lot for cost of living in that city.

Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

Huge taxes on properties registered to companies or properties that are not the owner's primary residence should do the trick.

Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

silence_kit posted:

I don’t think this alone solves the problem. I understand that you and others have an allergy to supply and demand principles, but more housing units in desireable areas need to be built by private companies and/or the government to really solve the problem.

The reason why this isn’t done isn’t usually because of greedy billionaires or whatever—it’s usually due to the preferences of ‘normal’ homeowners/people who participate in local governments.

Obviously going ham on building everywhere would be ideal. At least in the SF area, it'd likely be easier to pass a bunch of insane taxes than it would be to build more. The NIMBYism is insane.

Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

Baronash posted:

The idea that YouTube doesn’t bear an editorial responsibility for the suggestions generated by its recommendation engine seems bizarre to me. Of course they do, because the decision to turn recommendations over to a black box (it’s not a black box, YT just wants you to believe it is) is itself an editorial decision that they are culpable for.

And fixing that doesn’t mean banning all algorithms, whatever that means. I think one of the primary criteria ought to be whether the recommendation is user directed, such as a search results or channel subscriptions. Compare that to most of YouTube’s recommendations, which are shoved in your face whether you want them or not. That doesn’t get rid of the objectionable content (which should still be a priority), but it would prevent your interest in gaming videos from being an on-ramp into right wing content without some effort on your part.

Youtube and their algorithm are INSANE. Anne Reardon (very famous debunker of all the bullshit algorithm exploiting 'hack' videos) did a video about how dangerous fractal wood burning is and how it was causing deaths. Youtube's algorithm banned her video warning not to try to extremely dangerous thing but left all the videos describing in detail how to take apart a microwave and use electricity to burn wood.

Here's her talking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrynWtBDTE

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tuxedo Gin
May 21, 2003

Classy.

What is there to say about yet another senseless mass murder with a gun in America? Nothing ever changes. Elected officials will never do anything about gun violence that isn't 'tough on crime' anti-poor anti-minority policy. It's always a 'lone wolf', so nothing can be done to prevent this.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply