I mean your are assuming that with free housing you retain a right to live where you want to live.
I am NOT saying we should build this free housing in one area and stick people there: (see the many failed public housing attempts)
But there are more options available than everyone getting free housing in the bay area, CA.
I am completely at a loss to what your referring to then.
I know of eviction moratoriums that occurred after covid. It was sold as a way to avoid a massive surge in displaced people from job loss.
At the time I thought it was strange that this was the best solution because as you said it put the cost on landlords which in my opinion hurts smaller landlords the most.
I don't really see what else could have been the cause but I guess I will rephrase:
- Why do you think this tool was used if not for Covid? (It was as least sold to the public that way right)
- Do you think now that it's been done once that it will happen again?
He's simply pointing out that Covid was a just a BS excuse for politicians to transfer money from landlords to deadbeat tenants (thereby inducing people to become deadbeats).
Exactly. Government policies created an economic crisis. Then government policies exacerbated the economic crisis by doing things like eviction moratoriums.
Not OP but now that’s it’s happened, it will happen again. I would personally not be surprised to see some cities and states clamp down on evictions during the next recession, heat wave, drought, or similar.
These politicians are quick to take new powers and slow to give them back.
As someone from a Western country, what replaces it?
How do you buy a car on a loan for example?
It's not perfect but unlike both your examples it isn't based on things that could be consider political. You can't lower your credit score by attending a protest for example. Or posting things for or against causes on the internet.
I am just honestly wondering what else is our there? It has always seemed like a tool that can be used by both individuals and lenders.
At my home the approach is a central registry of defaults that can be accessed with your permission (which is required by some but not all lenders to evaluate you). It's kind of an extreme version of a credit score, where everyone who has never defaulted - or where the cause of default wasn't their fault e.g. identity fraud - has a perfect "credit score".
The key values used by banks is essentially two ratios, loan vs collateral, and monthly loan payments vs monthly income; so the question isn't about whether to grant a loan but what is the maximum amount they are willing to risk given your income.
Doesn't this system also require a central registry of outstanding debt per individual? Otherwise if the bank ratio calculations say they're comfortable lending you $1000, what prevents you from going to 100 banks and getting 100x that amount (which, presumedly, would be beyond each individual bank's risk tolerance)?
When the stock price dropped and started to make margin calls on the loans, some of the banks had to take a loss as there wasn't enough liquidity to sell into.
banks don't like to be in this sort of situation - in this particular case, the banks just didn't do enough due diligence presumably.
As far as I understand, people in USA with zero credit history get a poor credit score, which is a major difference from zero history being as good as it gets.
The cost of repossessing a car isn’t zero, and even finding the car can be hard. What if the car is trashed when you repossess it? Say they wrecked it and don’t have insurance? This isn’t an uncommon scenario.
That's a pretty serious offense and it's extremely uncommon over here.
Sure, repossession can be costly but debt collection agencies will make your life hell very quickly, it's not something you can drag for years without big consequences.
This is sound logic and probably be the case but I wonder if this effect will be less than what we have seen in the past because of the reduced TDP of the M1 processors in general.
Maybe the cooling and power delivery difference between laptop formfactors and PC formfactors will be less with these new arm based chips.
This just isn't what the tweet shows?
Unless you are counting AdSense as sponsors? That doesn't seems to make sense.
You seem to be saying LTT is beholden to their sponsors? There is always an argument to be made there but misrepresenting: floatplane, AdSense and other sources that I don't see how you can call sponsors, which make up another 33% seems very disingenuous.
Yes, I am going by Google's own definition of AdSense which describes them as "sponsored links". If revenue from sponsored links does not count as sponsorship revenue then to each their own.
>You seem to be saying LTT is beholden to their sponsors?
This is such a massive jump I have no idea if it's even worth responding to it. I have no idea how posting a link to a literal pie chart directly from a source can be construed as saying that said source is beholden to sponsors.
If there's anything disingenuous, it would be the idea that not mentioning floatplane which makes up a mere 4% of revenue is a form of misrepresentation. That said I will defer to Hanlon's razor on that one [1]
Your math seems off, 1 ton is 1000kg, but your point still stands at $200 million plus the overhead of containment and transport to starship. This is far more economical that I expected.
But also this is the price to orbit. As the escape velocity is 1.5x higher we can probably assume the same or a greater increase in cost. Maybe you could just justify a really high orbit? It would take a long time for it to build up.
The main risk is taking off, you'd want something well protected and capable of surviving starship blowing up at any point during ascent, including returning safely to earth and impacting. You'd probably want to (unusually) launch over land - perhaps Alaska/Canada, to make retrieval easier should it fail before reaching orbit.
Once it's in a low orbit, the extra shielding isn't needed as much as it's not going to fall back to earth quickly, so boosting from there to a high orbit would reduce the mass needed to be transported.
In theory you could maybe do it for say $4b/yr all in.
How many orbital solar collectors could you use to concentrate energy and beam the equivalent energy currently produced by nuclear plants to a desert based collector?
Yeah, I didn't even consider this. But at what point does orbital solar energy start to make sense?
I wonder what the $/kg before we can just send up solar panels that last 100+ years and provide continuous microwave beams of clean energy to ground stations.
I can't tell if this is sacarstic or not but I decided to do the math.
Mass of earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
Launch capacity per year: 15,500 tons
Years to get rid of earth: 385,290,322,580,645,161 years.
I think if we every have to worry about this it becomes more a question of where are we going? And do we have enough carbon to cycle for fuel to do this.
Gravitational binding energy of Earth is about 10^32 joules, so you'd need to pump that much in to dismantle Earth. The entire solar output reaching Earth is about 10^17 Watts, so it would take 10^8 years to dismantle Earth without leaving it if you could capture every Joules as it entered the atmosphere
On the other hand if you could capture the Sun's entire output - not just that arriving at Earth - you'd have enough energy to do it in a week or two.
Yes, there's all sorts of odd things that would happen with rotational energy too, hence you don't need as much as if you calculated it based on lifting 1kg at a time from the earth's surface. You'd need about 10^32 joules. If you didn't account for that you'd need about twice as much energy, which is about 10^32 joules.
In theory you could simply vaporize the earth with antimatter, converting it to energy, rather than trying to disasemble it. That would produce far more energy than the gravitational binding energy, so unless you happen to have a planet sized lump of antimatter around you'd have to generate it with more than 10^32 joules.
Also worth noting that the Earth receives about 43 tons of new mass every day, mostly from meteorites. Coincidentally, this works out to 15,695 tons of new mass every year.
> Will this ever be safe enough to use as a hazardous waste disposal system? Can we just send the worst of the worst into the sun without too much risk of just spreading it out through the atmosphere in case of an explosion.
I don't think it is impossible that launch capabilities become safe enough to lower the risk to something some people might consider acceptable. However the physics of it won't change. To even get into earths orbit we have to accelerate anything going up to an average of 7.8 Km/s, where to escape orbit to anywhere else it's 11.8 Km/s.
I think the amount of energy to do that will always be the primary reason why this just isn't practical. Assuming you are advanced enough to be considering this, I would hope that your society is stable enough for long term containment and processing.
A space elevator could fling it out to escape velocity if you can build the containment vessel to survive a fall at terminal velocity (way lower than orbital velocity). Energy wouldn't be a problem for a civilization with the capability of building such an elevator, as there's plenty of solar, and raising 1 ton to GEO uses a trivial amount of energy.
If a stalker is willing to buy a burner iOS device (since that's the means of viewing Airtag data), associate it with an untraceable email/iCloud, and only leave the device's location services on in locations that aren't tied to their identity (since Apple also knows where the tracking phone is), then 'having access to Airtags' probably isn't the 'make or break' factor in whether or not they will stalk someone.
If a user has that level of tech savvy, there are plenty of other cellular GPS devices they could use.
I suspect they could get several cellular GPS devices for the cost of an iPhone + some AirTags - meaning they could easily offer up one or two sacrificial ones for easy finding in order to hide a smaller one "in plain sight" (as it were.)
Or they could just hire a private detective to do some stalking for them.
Or someone even less scrupulous for even less money, I'd assume?
> Do you have to reveal who you are to Apple to use an airtag though?
People are subjecting themselves to voluntary surveillance and it's amazing to watch, Apple's promise to cooperate with "Law Enforcement" in most of the world was chilling. J Edgar Hoover would have creamed his pants - "Did you say MLK Jr. has several airtags? I want daily updates on where he's going."
I am NOT saying we should build this free housing in one area and stick people there: (see the many failed public housing attempts) But there are more options available than everyone getting free housing in the bay area, CA.