The biggest barrier to learning is having a real motivating need to learn the thing. Young people aren't as dissolutioned about the uselessness of what they are learning relative to all the demands of adult life.
I've learned amazing things when I had a real reason pop pup, after a decade of idly wanting to learn it.
My stepdad saved, as much as he could, so he and my mom could enjoy at the level or slightly less, retired 18 months ago and was proud. Retired at 71. Died this January past. Got less than 2 years.
Sure—not every comment that breaks the site guidelines is equally bad, although if you take the context into account the GP comment was pretty vicious.
As it happens, I banned both of those accounts elsewhere:
If there's an assumption in your comment that moderation ought to be consistent, this is not possible because we can't moderate what we don't see, and we don't come close to seeing everything.
It’s because HN folks seem to consider themselves above working-class or soon to be above. They’re just temporarily stuck before they find their big ceo level breaks.
They often demonstrate ideals that go counter to their own interests while simping for daddy ceo’s boot and money.
> They often demonstrate ideals that go counter to their own interests
This for real. The cognitive dissonance is giving me more cognitive dissonance. I highly doubt that even though this may be a VC owned and operated site, somehow everyone on the site is a vc or something similar?
We've banned this account for egregiously and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Note: using HN as intended has nothing to do with your opinions about capitalism or any other hot topic.
We've banned this account for egregiously and repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Note: using HN as intended has nothing to do with your opinions about capitalism or any other hot topic.
Nationalize (rental) housing or make it so no corporation can own housing. Co-ops where renters are actually owners for large scale buildings. More single family housing.
> Nationalize (rental) housing or make it so no corporation can own housing
Right now, only "luxury" housing developers are building new housing in high demand areas, so this is a recipe for curbing new development.
> Co-ops where renters are actually owners for large scale buildings.
Co-ops are cheaper monetarily, but you instead "pay" with you're inconvenience or conformity, which sometimes can include your skin color. Good luck proving that though.
> More single family housing.
That works, but there isn't any room to build any more in the most expensive housing markets
> Riots
Are also a great way to discourage new housing development and destroy the existing supply
barring rational regulation, we are likely to observe irrational actions in the future. Cost Disease is progressing to the point where prices are non-sensical. How does the median house appreciate more than the median income every year? Carry forward college prices 15 years and a 4 year degree will cost 800k. These are not sustainable numbers. Gen Alpha would be facing a 1.6 MM starting home cost and be saddled with hundreds of thousands in student loan debt.
Yes, we need to build more houses. Investing in real estate only makes sense when supply is constrained. When we allow people to build housing values tend more toward the cost to build as you cant speculate without constraining supply.
Bad for making it so there are homes that people can afford.
Capitalism yada yada - people need resources in order to get homes, people will only construct homes if they get resources in exchange. These are just facts of the world - it sucks that building costs, but it does.
If there is demand for house construction, people will build houses as a service. No land ownership, or even no housing ownership does not change this fact.
When profit is allowed for things that make people safe, housed, healthy, fed, or educated, those profiting are, imho, committing crimes against humanity.
Yes you can. It’s capitalism. The owners of the current system lobby and advertise and “manufacture consent” in keeping the current system because it is wildly profitable.
The Court was clear in Heller that "no right is unlimited," but that still does not mean that reinterpreting this specific, independent 200-year-old clause is what would legally enable regulation of the right to bear arms.
The "well-regulated militia" argument was quickly defused by the Court because these people are actual legal scholars with extensive, relevant English and history educations.
