According to precedence and all of the recent SCOTUS judges, the government is in violation when they invade a layman's general "expectation of privacy". Some of the justices (4?) go beyond that by bringing an expectation of property and trespass of to data collection.
Looking through the window of a car isn't a violation, but having your GPS position noted every hour for days would be. And all that means is that a properly scoped warrant is required.
So currently we are pretty well off. That doesn't mean the government doesn't violate things but it's a do-and-seek-forgiveness type of world.
To add to the other's voices. When you are passionate about something, it takes a LOT of work and causes a lot of internal stress to calmly tell someone that they are wrong or they need to do better. I write emails all the time where I am a total dick because of all the really stupid ideas (personal opinion of course) I heard on a design call. But then I go cool off, come back, and rewrite it in a "professional" manner before hitting send.
This is the way I have learned to cope with it. And it takes effort to do so. And I know that sending that original email which is much shorter and to the point (ie: actually read), will not only get the message across but also make people think twice before wasting time on a call. It will make the calls more productive. BUT, it will also give me a black mark on my performance review AND I will miss a really great idea from a introvert because I made it hostile for them.
But the point is, being "nice" on stressful, time crunched, & passionate projects with a diverse set of personalities, experience levels, and cultural backgrounds.... is going to take a LOT of work & time. Time that many do not have.
Personally, I don't think Linus does as horrible of a job as he thinks. Its clear he is blowing steam in some cases. Its just a public forum online. If he was screaming at you in the face... that I would consider bad and a personal control issue.
The post is just more BS, and I am sure the book isn't as doom and gloom (not linked). We have had automation of "repetitive" and "labor intensive" tasks for 50+ years. And the cost hasn't changed much in the last two decades. All that has changed is the computing power that allows more flexible boundaries, and specification tolerances (the machine "learns via trial & error" to get back to tight tolerances).
But even though it was entirely feasible in the last 20 years to replace 80% of what China and India do with a robot arm or software script, we haven't. The simple reason isn't the traditional deployment cost but the development cost. Every minor variation in the process needs a massive development cost; a change that is extremely cheap for even the intelligence level of a dog. Simply put, we are in a constantly changing world and humans are a million times better & faster at adapting to it than even the most powerful AIs backed by the most advanced developers we have today.
Think fidget spinners, do we really think the AI or automation that would replace the human components in the production & logistics chain would have an ROI on its demand curve/spike? The fad would be over long before the systems were developed, machine learned, and churned out the first widgets.
The current production systems are as automated as realistically feasible and continue to automate at a glacial pace in comparison to technological capability. When I visit factories & offices, I am dumbfounded at the level of manual efforts deployed. But the manager running operations for 25+ years just chuckles at my naivety. All these CEOs and researchers writing these articles from their offices closed off from the real world, only look at the technological capabilities and drum up all kinds of fantasies & nightmares.
Its no different than envisioning that the StarTrek style food dispenser is only 20 years away and the labor impacts it will have all over the world. We can't even get the speech recognition right. And this is all before we add the political landscape hindering the technology.
Side note: There is script automation happening in India that is costing a lot of jobs. But keep in mind, those scripts could have been developed and written when Perl 1.0 came out. Automation & AI will impact the developing world. But they are just catching up to developed nations as those impacts on labor are far more prevalent in the US, Germany, etc. And like the developed nations, they too will adapt with some pain.
I don't even think it is problematic. The real problem seems to be people who are taking terms outside their intended space. Why are we linking a scar on human history to terms explaining technical relationships?
I hope BDFL tells everyone to either shut up and get back to work or fork something on 4chan.
1) 540,873/92,728 ~ 5.8x white vs black on cross race violence. 2) 197m/40m ~ 5x white vs black people population.
But on #2, I went with the US Census website which said 76.6% and 13.4% 2017 populations for white and black. That is ~5.7x. In 2010, it was just a little closer to 6. So I rounded both to 6. Conclusion: relative to population, both sides are equally violent to each other.
NOW, I totally disagree with your comparison of numbers. You are comparing cross race violence as a indicator of threat against the entire population. However, this throws out the primary threat in both races, which is inTERracial violence. White people are ~4x more likely to attack a white person than a black person. A black person is ~6x more likely to attack a black person than a white person. Your math is like comparing the race times of 2nd places that came in well after 1st.
As for whites being safer, there were 3.6m acts of violence against them and blacks had 0.8m acts. So 197m/3.6m is safer than 40m/0.8m. Per your numbers, they are pretty close. If you took the 2017 (249m & 43m) or 2010 census numbers, you will see whites are safer than blacks as an overall risk of violence... even though they are, in general, richer and better off in society. Conclusion: in general, its safer to be White or Hispanic than Black in the US.
BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT. That report also has a nice little chart (Pg4-Fig2) that compares black/white-on-black/white violence in relation to population. You will see that over a 22 YEAR PERIOD, same race violence is FAR more of a threat than cross race violence! In fact, the cross race violence between these two races over the last 19 YEARS is pretty much the same, with the lines even crossing.
MY POINT IS: Rather than waste time & resources discussing how blacks are more/less/same a threat to whites & vice verse, why don't we focus on the elephant in the room. Which is same race violence is too high! Lets hit that so we get the biggest bang for our buck, then we can waste the pennies on second place.
Seems like black-on-white crime is almost 6x more likely than white-on-black crime. And what do you know, there are 6x more white people than black people in the US. So intraracial violence seems proportionally the same for these two.
It's seems MOST violence is from the same race. BUT White people seem to attack other races more than black people. Hispanics DO appear worse, but it makes sense that a minority attacks other races more... considering the targets have low numbers of their race. Care to explain the White race's apparent unbalanced violence against others?
Additionally, even thou there are 6x more white people than black people, they only face 4x more violence! Even the Hispanics face less violence than blacks.
Numbers wise, white people are pretty darn safe. Their biggest threat is other white people.
Then you got to reassess these numbers by the feedback and biases within the justice system. Things like how blacks face harsher punishments than white people or aren't forgiven as quickly. Or how the jail time doesn't help them get ahead in society and further pulls their family into poverty, gangs, and crime. Then the numbers look even worse for white people.
It is around because it is by design. There is only ONE part of the US government that is actually represented of the people who vote (note, its not all the people). That is the House of Representatives within Congress. Even the Senate is not a representation of the people. The House members also only serve 2 year terms!
POTUS isn't supposed to represent nor be curtailed by national mood swings. Neither is SCOTUS. The Senate represent their state, not it's people. If the US government was as represented by the people as the media and everyone thinks, we wouldn't have freed the slaves, couldn't stay in Wars, women & blacks wouldn't have voting rights, etc.
And the people DO elect their Electors. Even though it looks like you are voting for a single person, you are actually selecting the group of Electors who will vote for that person if they go to the Electoral Collage. You still aren't voting for a POTUS because most states will dump ALL of their Electoral votes to the one that had the majority. So every year, many Electors technically don't vote the way their people told them to.
So are you saying he didn't pay ANY sales taxes on his purchases/expenditures? If you had 1 million in revenues and same in costs; the tax man got some of his share already.
Please mod parent UP. I don't know about the numbers, but this is a nice concise explanation of our voting system.
Every election someone brings up the "popular vote" BS. It's a total waste of time that the ants run all over. Shame on the media for lighting and fanning the topic each election.
They rolled over it to simply the explanation. But that specific type of friction effectively goes to zero. Similar to a standing vs rolling ball. The former has effectively zero rolling friction and the latter has effectively zero static friction. And of course neither has sliding friction.
Ok, we need to stop elevating Yoda's inability to speak proper English.
The truth is, he was good at a lot of things and studied all the time. But during HomeEco and English, he slept. The teachers thought he was "meditating" and "becoming one with the force". He was sleeping!
1980s English wiring is actually far superior to the 1950s US, and has a few slight advantages over the rest of Europe.
There, fixed that for you. Half of what you say applies to both countries.
In terms of safety, the primary difference between US and UK is that UK's higher voltage means a higher level of hazard. Therefore, they apply more safety measures. As another said, it's fuses all the way down. In the US, you can touch a 110 wire, jerk your hand away, and just get back to working. I know old timers who test if it's live by tapping their finger! DONT DO THAT IN EUROPE, INDIA, OR CHINA. Speaking from personal experience in India.
In the US, the residential infrastructure has all safety's built in (including your plug stuff). And the safety's don't need to be as bulky as UKs because of the lower voltage (=less shielding). Why we always used wirenuts and you guys are still afraid of them over chocolate boxes. Even though both may meet the same spec.
Before you think one is better than the other, keep in mind their histories and purpose and how long they been around. Most things this old have had most of their inefficiencies rusted out of their systems. Their differences usually exist for different needs.
The employees of a business do not produce enough value to keep the company viable. By their very definition, they get less for their labor than what the company gets in value. So they can never afford more than what their company continuously produces; employed or not.
Additionally, lets say the market demands drop because of earnings shortages. What happens is either the service ends or the company gets replaced by a cheaper running solution to reduce their market price. Such as lower wages for the employees or shutting down of production lines.
Keeping people employed for the sake of employment has been proven to be detrimental to society many many times in history. Just because someone is employed and obtaining a salary doesn't mean anything. There must either be value generate or subsidized from somewhere else; reducing the efficient of that other process.
As for Automation, we have yet to see an instance in history where it has been detrimental to society as a whole over the long term.
Putting it under the mattress is not "savings". That's being the fool. Put it in the bank. Up to $250k, your savings are protected by the federal government. Even if you die, the US government will find your next of kin and give them that monies.
Do the same at other governments and see how it works out.
Seriously, why is basic investing & savings knowledge even a discussion on Slashdot?
As a frequent flier, I am well aware how big the US is. Most people fly rather than drive to get around it. But traveling those distances isn't what we are talking about. US cities are just as dense and similar in size as many other foreign cities but with worse public transit.
Most of our cities are designed around horse drawn carriages, trollies, and pedestrian traffic. Only in the last 80 years have we really redesigned them for automobiles. We basically pushed pedestrians to the side (get it?), phased out carriages, and defunded trollies. It was just 60 years ago that we decided to have standard roads outside of cities. 35 years ago, you couldn't get from one side of the US to the other on a standard road! We completed our national highway system just 25 years ago!
This car craze we have in the US is literally just 2-3 generations old. And the current generation is using ride shares. And the next one is looking forward to driverless taxies.
From what I have seen there are only two places with Ok transit. NYC and DC. Those would be passable in the EU. All the others don't hold a candle to the likes of EU, Singapore, and Japan. Heck places like Hong Kong, Hyderabad, and Moscow have better transit systems than some US metros.
Right, except it is possible to live in NYC without a car. With Uber/Lyft it is possible to live in many US cities without a car. With rideshare it is possible to get to work without a car. I know people who only had one car and two people working 30 minutes apart. This was quite common 20 years ago. I know people who only have a bicycle! I know people who live in walking communities with major grocery stores within 1/2 a km. My youth was spent without a car for a few years. I was a full time travel consultant. I had but didn't need a car. I always booked close to the client I flew to.
Trust me, it's quite possible.
And the primary problem you have with public transit in the US is that it simply sucks. It is horribly funded, costs too much, and gets you close but not where you want to go. Partially because of sprawling retail shops and housing.
It's not that there is a bus/train every 20 minutes that bothers people. It's that there isn't a bus/train every 20 minutes. It's 20+/-5 minutes that gets people in a twist. You can plan for a scheduled bus... if it's on schedule. We all do it for sports, meetings, and various other events throughout our life. Heck 15 years ago, a family would get together on schedule to watch a TV show!
I understand, the car isn't a luxury but it's also not an absolute necessity in may parts of the US like heating or plumbing.
I would say most people in the US reject public transit because they don't want to pay the extra taxes. Even if there is public transit, most families will still have carS so they see that transit as just extra taxes.
Yes, Americans can do without cars, but it's just the thing here. The exceptions exist in places like New York City, cities in California & Florida. Until there is a major cultural shift where the "American Dream" doesn't include cars, a single family home, and two kids, it won't change.
What keeps most people out of neighborhoods is property values. And since everyone from the sellers, lenders, agents, neighbors, and tax collectors want higher values, it's kind of difficult to build low priced housing. Even when Cities here try to build "affordable housing", it just ends up being unaffordable housing with unsustainable subsidies.
The first time buyers here are mostly priced out of good markets in the US. A problem that other countries have primarily due to population densities.
Men clothing lean more utility than fashion and women clothing leans way the other way. I guess small pockets keep that whole region small, favoring the skinny model look. Which of course doesn't match most sexy, healthy women's appearance.
Think about it in the context of what the original poster said. I buy a house that I can afford because it's price is set high enough that the prior owner can't outbid me. But I now must raise its price up else the second place bidder will eventually take it from me.
I will raise it to the point where I can barely afford the taxes I pay on that raised value. So if someone who can afford the house at its new price takes it from me, he does so because I can't afford the taxes I myself imposed on it. And I basically did the same thing to the prior owner.
In this system it's just a loss of property to the richest and increased tax revenues but no real value was actually produced in the transactions.
That is the problem. One shouldn't lose their home just because someone else can afford the value while they can't afford the tax on the value. Because eventually only one will own everything.
The "richness" of the company/entity shouldn't matter. I mean why do all the complicated math. Just have a cap on earnings. Its 100% tax after X earnings. That is simple.
It is every tax payer's right to dispute a tax assessment. And companies have an obligation to their shareholders to do so. But just because they dispute it doesn't mean it will be accepted by the taxing body. If the taxing body does accept it, then it isn't fair to blame the one disputing. Put the blame on the politicians and law makers who clearly aren't doing their job.
Slashdot Mirror
According to precedence and all of the recent SCOTUS judges, the government is in violation when they invade a layman's general "expectation of privacy". Some of the justices (4?) go beyond that by bringing an expectation of property and trespass of to data collection.
Looking through the window of a car isn't a violation, but having your GPS position noted every hour for days would be. And all that means is that a properly scoped warrant is required.
So currently we are pretty well off. That doesn't mean the government doesn't violate things but it's a do-and-seek-forgiveness type of world.
But I thought there were already "breeder reactors" that did this. How was this design different from them?
To add to the other's voices. When you are passionate about something, it takes a LOT of work and causes a lot of internal stress to calmly tell someone that they are wrong or they need to do better. I write emails all the time where I am a total dick because of all the really stupid ideas (personal opinion of course) I heard on a design call. But then I go cool off, come back, and rewrite it in a "professional" manner before hitting send.
This is the way I have learned to cope with it. And it takes effort to do so. And I know that sending that original email which is much shorter and to the point (ie: actually read), will not only get the message across but also make people think twice before wasting time on a call. It will make the calls more productive. BUT, it will also give me a black mark on my performance review AND I will miss a really great idea from a introvert because I made it hostile for them.
But the point is, being "nice" on stressful, time crunched, & passionate projects with a diverse set of personalities, experience levels, and cultural backgrounds.... is going to take a LOT of work & time. Time that many do not have.
Personally, I don't think Linus does as horrible of a job as he thinks. Its clear he is blowing steam in some cases. Its just a public forum online. If he was screaming at you in the face... that I would consider bad and a personal control issue.
The post is just more BS, and I am sure the book isn't as doom and gloom (not linked). We have had automation of "repetitive" and "labor intensive" tasks for 50+ years. And the cost hasn't changed much in the last two decades. All that has changed is the computing power that allows more flexible boundaries, and specification tolerances (the machine "learns via trial & error" to get back to tight tolerances).
But even though it was entirely feasible in the last 20 years to replace 80% of what China and India do with a robot arm or software script, we haven't. The simple reason isn't the traditional deployment cost but the development cost. Every minor variation in the process needs a massive development cost; a change that is extremely cheap for even the intelligence level of a dog. Simply put, we are in a constantly changing world and humans are a million times better & faster at adapting to it than even the most powerful AIs backed by the most advanced developers we have today.
Think fidget spinners, do we really think the AI or automation that would replace the human components in the production & logistics chain would have an ROI on its demand curve/spike? The fad would be over long before the systems were developed, machine learned, and churned out the first widgets.
The current production systems are as automated as realistically feasible and continue to automate at a glacial pace in comparison to technological capability. When I visit factories & offices, I am dumbfounded at the level of manual efforts deployed. But the manager running operations for 25+ years just chuckles at my naivety. All these CEOs and researchers writing these articles from their offices closed off from the real world, only look at the technological capabilities and drum up all kinds of fantasies & nightmares.
Its no different than envisioning that the StarTrek style food dispenser is only 20 years away and the labor impacts it will have all over the world. We can't even get the speech recognition right. And this is all before we add the political landscape hindering the technology.
Side note: There is script automation happening in India that is costing a lot of jobs. But keep in mind, those scripts could have been developed and written when Perl 1.0 came out. Automation & AI will impact the developing world. But they are just catching up to developed nations as those impacts on labor are far more prevalent in the US, Germany, etc. And like the developed nations, they too will adapt with some pain.
I don't even think it is problematic. The real problem seems to be people who are taking terms outside their intended space. Why are we linking a scar on human history to terms explaining technical relationships?
I hope BDFL tells everyone to either shut up and get back to work or fork something on 4chan.
1) 540,873/92,728 ~ 5.8x white vs black on cross race violence.
2) 197m/40m ~ 5x white vs black people population.
But on #2, I went with the US Census website which said 76.6% and 13.4% 2017 populations for white and black. That is ~5.7x. In 2010, it was just a little closer to 6. So I rounded both to 6. Conclusion: relative to population, both sides are equally violent to each other.
NOW, I totally disagree with your comparison of numbers. You are comparing cross race violence as a indicator of threat against the entire population. However, this throws out the primary threat in both races, which is inTERracial violence. White people are ~4x more likely to attack a white person than a black person. A black person is ~6x more likely to attack a black person than a white person. Your math is like comparing the race times of 2nd places that came in well after 1st.
As for whites being safer, there were 3.6m acts of violence against them and blacks had 0.8m acts. So 197m/3.6m is safer than 40m/0.8m. Per your numbers, they are pretty close. If you took the 2017 (249m & 43m) or 2010 census numbers, you will see whites are safer than blacks as an overall risk of violence... even though they are, in general, richer and better off in society. Conclusion: in general, its safer to be White or Hispanic than Black in the US.
BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT. That report also has a nice little chart (Pg4-Fig2) that compares black/white-on-black/white violence in relation to population. You will see that over a 22 YEAR PERIOD, same race violence is FAR more of a threat than cross race violence! In fact, the cross race violence between these two races over the last 19 YEARS is pretty much the same, with the lines even crossing.
MY POINT IS: Rather than waste time & resources discussing how blacks are more/less/same a threat to whites & vice verse, why don't we focus on the elephant in the room. Which is same race violence is too high! Lets hit that so we get the biggest bang for our buck, then we can waste the pennies on second place.
US Census: https://www.census.gov/quickfa...
Here is a link to stats:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pu...
Seems like black-on-white crime is almost 6x more likely than white-on-black crime. And what do you know, there are 6x more white people than black people in the US. So intraracial violence seems proportionally the same for these two.
It's seems MOST violence is from the same race. BUT White people seem to attack other races more than black people. Hispanics DO appear worse, but it makes sense that a minority attacks other races more... considering the targets have low numbers of their race. Care to explain the White race's apparent unbalanced violence against others?
Additionally, even thou there are 6x more white people than black people, they only face 4x more violence! Even the Hispanics face less violence than blacks.
Numbers wise, white people are pretty darn safe. Their biggest threat is other white people.
Then you got to reassess these numbers by the feedback and biases within the justice system. Things like how blacks face harsher punishments than white people or aren't forgiven as quickly. Or how the jail time doesn't help them get ahead in society and further pulls their family into poverty, gangs, and crime. Then the numbers look even worse for white people.
It is around because it is by design. There is only ONE part of the US government that is actually represented of the people who vote (note, its not all the people). That is the House of Representatives within Congress. Even the Senate is not a representation of the people. The House members also only serve 2 year terms!
POTUS isn't supposed to represent nor be curtailed by national mood swings. Neither is SCOTUS. The Senate represent their state, not it's people. If the US government was as represented by the people as the media and everyone thinks, we wouldn't have freed the slaves, couldn't stay in Wars, women & blacks wouldn't have voting rights, etc.
And the people DO elect their Electors. Even though it looks like you are voting for a single person, you are actually selecting the group of Electors who will vote for that person if they go to the Electoral Collage. You still aren't voting for a POTUS because most states will dump ALL of their Electoral votes to the one that had the majority. So every year, many Electors technically don't vote the way their people told them to.
So are you saying he didn't pay ANY sales taxes on his purchases/expenditures? If you had 1 million in revenues and same in costs; the tax man got some of his share already.
Mr Buffet is worth 80 Billion dollars. If he made 1% in profits a year and his effective tax was 1%. That would still be 8 million in taxes paid!!
I doubt his security costs us more than double the EPA head's equivalent.
Please mod parent UP. I don't know about the numbers, but this is a nice concise explanation of our voting system.
Every election someone brings up the "popular vote" BS. It's a total waste of time that the ants run all over. Shame on the media for lighting and fanning the topic each election.
They rolled over it to simply the explanation. But that specific type of friction effectively goes to zero. Similar to a standing vs rolling ball. The former has effectively zero rolling friction and the latter has effectively zero static friction. And of course neither has sliding friction.
Ok, we need to stop elevating Yoda's inability to speak proper English.
The truth is, he was good at a lot of things and studied all the time. But during HomeEco and English, he slept. The teachers thought he was "meditating" and "becoming one with the force". He was sleeping!
1980s English wiring is actually far superior to the 1950s US, and has a few slight advantages over the rest of Europe.
There, fixed that for you. Half of what you say applies to both countries.
In terms of safety, the primary difference between US and UK is that UK's higher voltage means a higher level of hazard. Therefore, they apply more safety measures. As another said, it's fuses all the way down. In the US, you can touch a 110 wire, jerk your hand away, and just get back to working. I know old timers who test if it's live by tapping their finger! DONT DO THAT IN EUROPE, INDIA, OR CHINA. Speaking from personal experience in India.
In the US, the residential infrastructure has all safety's built in (including your plug stuff). And the safety's don't need to be as bulky as UKs because of the lower voltage (=less shielding). Why we always used wirenuts and you guys are still afraid of them over chocolate boxes. Even though both may meet the same spec.
Before you think one is better than the other, keep in mind their histories and purpose and how long they been around. Most things this old have had most of their inefficiencies rusted out of their systems. Their differences usually exist for different needs.
The employees of a business do not produce enough value to keep the company viable. By their very definition, they get less for their labor than what the company gets in value. So they can never afford more than what their company continuously produces; employed or not.
Additionally, lets say the market demands drop because of earnings shortages. What happens is either the service ends or the company gets replaced by a cheaper running solution to reduce their market price. Such as lower wages for the employees or shutting down of production lines.
Keeping people employed for the sake of employment has been proven to be detrimental to society many many times in history. Just because someone is employed and obtaining a salary doesn't mean anything. There must either be value generate or subsidized from somewhere else; reducing the efficient of that other process.
As for Automation, we have yet to see an instance in history where it has been detrimental to society as a whole over the long term.
Putting it under the mattress is not "savings". That's being the fool. Put it in the bank. Up to $250k, your savings are protected by the federal government. Even if you die, the US government will find your next of kin and give them that monies.
Do the same at other governments and see how it works out.
Seriously, why is basic investing & savings knowledge even a discussion on Slashdot?
As a frequent flier, I am well aware how big the US is. Most people fly rather than drive to get around it. But traveling those distances isn't what we are talking about. US cities are just as dense and similar in size as many other foreign cities but with worse public transit.
Most of our cities are designed around horse drawn carriages, trollies, and pedestrian traffic. Only in the last 80 years have we really redesigned them for automobiles. We basically pushed pedestrians to the side (get it?), phased out carriages, and defunded trollies. It was just 60 years ago that we decided to have standard roads outside of cities. 35 years ago, you couldn't get from one side of the US to the other on a standard road! We completed our national highway system just 25 years ago!
This car craze we have in the US is literally just 2-3 generations old. And the current generation is using ride shares. And the next one is looking forward to driverless taxies.
From what I have seen there are only two places with Ok transit. NYC and DC. Those would be passable in the EU. All the others don't hold a candle to the likes of EU, Singapore, and Japan. Heck places like Hong Kong, Hyderabad, and Moscow have better transit systems than some US metros.
Right, except it is possible to live in NYC without a car. With Uber/Lyft it is possible to live in many US cities without a car. With rideshare it is possible to get to work without a car. I know people who only had one car and two people working 30 minutes apart. This was quite common 20 years ago. I know people who only have a bicycle! I know people who live in walking communities with major grocery stores within 1/2 a km. My youth was spent without a car for a few years. I was a full time travel consultant. I had but didn't need a car. I always booked close to the client I flew to.
Trust me, it's quite possible.
And the primary problem you have with public transit in the US is that it simply sucks. It is horribly funded, costs too much, and gets you close but not where you want to go. Partially because of sprawling retail shops and housing.
It's not that there is a bus/train every 20 minutes that bothers people. It's that there isn't a bus/train every 20 minutes. It's 20+/-5 minutes that gets people in a twist. You can plan for a scheduled bus... if it's on schedule. We all do it for sports, meetings, and various other events throughout our life. Heck 15 years ago, a family would get together on schedule to watch a TV show!
I understand, the car isn't a luxury but it's also not an absolute necessity in may parts of the US like heating or plumbing.
I would say most people in the US reject public transit because they don't want to pay the extra taxes. Even if there is public transit, most families will still have carS so they see that transit as just extra taxes.
Yes, Americans can do without cars, but it's just the thing here. The exceptions exist in places like New York City, cities in California & Florida. Until there is a major cultural shift where the "American Dream" doesn't include cars, a single family home, and two kids, it won't change.
What keeps most people out of neighborhoods is property values. And since everyone from the sellers, lenders, agents, neighbors, and tax collectors want higher values, it's kind of difficult to build low priced housing. Even when Cities here try to build "affordable housing", it just ends up being unaffordable housing with unsustainable subsidies.
The first time buyers here are mostly priced out of good markets in the US. A problem that other countries have primarily due to population densities.
Eat 50% carbs and get your protein & fat from nuts & beans. You will gain 1-4 years on your life... if you make it past 50.
We couldn't add a sentence or two about their samples exercise level to get more concrete answers?
Men clothing lean more utility than fashion and women clothing leans way the other way. I guess small pockets keep that whole region small, favoring the skinny model look. Which of course doesn't match most sexy, healthy women's appearance.
I am not saying that.
Think about it in the context of what the original poster said. I buy a house that I can afford because it's price is set high enough that the prior owner can't outbid me. But I now must raise its price up else the second place bidder will eventually take it from me.
I will raise it to the point where I can barely afford the taxes I pay on that raised value. So if someone who can afford the house at its new price takes it from me, he does so because I can't afford the taxes I myself imposed on it. And I basically did the same thing to the prior owner.
In this system it's just a loss of property to the richest and increased tax revenues but no real value was actually produced in the transactions.
That is the problem. One shouldn't lose their home just because someone else can afford the value while they can't afford the tax on the value. Because eventually only one will own everything.
The "richness" of the company/entity shouldn't matter. I mean why do all the complicated math. Just have a cap on earnings. Its 100% tax after X earnings. That is simple.
It is every tax payer's right to dispute a tax assessment. And companies have an obligation to their shareholders to do so. But just because they dispute it doesn't mean it will be accepted by the taxing body. If the taxing body does accept it, then it isn't fair to blame the one disputing. Put the blame on the politicians and law makers who clearly aren't doing their job.
Just because someone else can afford my house and I can't afford the tax on it doesn't mean I should lose my house.