The top-level comment added nothing to the conversation that this site is supposed to be about. We are supposed to assume that commenters read thee article, and if they did, a LOL, ROFL, or WTF doesn't move the conversation forward.
gotta love how credulous you people are to the most insane statements by this administration, and how skeptical you are of the most unsurprising events in the world.
this just in: agency infamous for fragile egos and abuse of power got their ego bruised and abused their power.
> Any average citizen would be arrested and detained.
yes, ICE thugs would probably behave equally lawlessly towards any civilian challenging them for a warrant. that doesn't make what happened less horrifying.
> They are not "thugs". They are federal officers.
are they? maybe they should identify themselves as such with names, badge numbers, and warrants?
> They are upholding federal law.
they clearly aren't given the number of court cases the Trump administration is rapidly losing related to its deportation activity.
> This constant manipulation of words is tiring
this constant sanewashing of cruelty is tiring. you should find it horrifying.
but I'm not going to go in circles with you. I hope you eventually look back on this part of your life with shame about your beliefs and who and what you defended.
Tesla is also the leader in terms of crashes, injuries, and fatalities. On a per-mile basis, they're the most dangerous advanced driving system in the world and it's not even close.
And they all do it better than Tesla. 0 fatalities. 0 injuries. 0 crashes where the self-driving was at fault (but a few where the car behind them crashed into them).
Glorified cruise control does not equal self driving. I know everyone has to hate on Tesla, but FSD in its current form is a decade ahead of these. It doesn't take long looking at videos of actual people using these systems to understand the massive capability gap between Teslas FSD and everyone elses driver assistance system.
> FSD in its current form is a decade ahead of these.
FSD is still only level 2.
Honda and Mercedes are the only two companies to sell level 3 capable cars, but these are only level 3 under certain limited conditions.
You may be correct that the level 2 performance of FSD is ahead of the level 2 performance of any other car, but I don’t think we can call Tesla king until they also match the level 3 performance of these other cars under those conditions.
Maybe but yes those level 3 systems need the stars to align to actually be active from what I understand. It's just as far as I know, there's no other system that allows someone to just enter an address, navigate through both city and highway, then arrive at a destination.
Glorified cruise control does not equal self driving
Elon Musk disagrees. He's been calling glorified cruise control self-driving for a decade.
FSD in its current form is a decade ahead of these
Yes, in terms of accidents and fatalities, FSR is way ahead of the entire rest of the industry. In terms of actual driving quality? Super Cruise and BMW have it beat. Yes, they're geographically limited. That's because GM and BMW are acting responsibly and making sure it works before they open it up everywhere. Move fast and break things doesn't work when the things being broken are people.
I got a video of my own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPUGh0qAqWA Goes into detail about why FSD crashes so frequently and why the problem cannot be fixed as long as FSD remains reliant on cameras. Indeed, if you type in "FSD accident" or any variation of "accident" there are thousands of videos, many of them taken by the Tesla owner themself.
unsustainable. and should be unconscionable. almost every pressing social problem can be traced back to the lack of housing supply (of course, some traces are looser than others)
The same can be said about a number of big cities over the past 30 years. Perhaps there ought to be limits of corporate ownership of residential properties and limits to the number any individual (non corporation) can own too. Also, limits to overseas buyers to prevent gentrification by foreign capital flight. Housing should be for real people who aren't billionaires.
That happens-- castillogrande in Cartagena Colombia used to be a bunch of family homes. Now it looks like Miami. China has tried it, but built a little much.
A problem in doing it in other places is location and regulations (e.g., whole areas where high rises are outlawed, or required to have expensive shrubbery, or a certain percentage of units for low income)
Surely it's not so simple when New York City is building more housing supply that essentially any other American city (and has the best public transit system in the nation)
That link you shared is counting the number of units build per 1k existing units.
Given how dense and populated NYC is (aka how many existing units there are), this metric isn't as meaningful. I believe the grandparent comment was talking about the raw number of units.
Actually, go to the bottom of the page you shared and look at the section titled "Full results", then sort by "Total new housing units authorized". Sadly, you will need to do some quick manual work to parse the results, because it sorts numbers as strings rather than as actual numbers. But you can clearly see from there that NYC is #1 in terms of raw numbers of new housing units. And that's data from 2021, and afaik NYC only increased those numbers significantly in the past 4 years.
Sure. What was the rate of homebuilding to job growth in NYC and other major metro areas in the US?
I am not trying to be snarky, I actually agree with you. I just simply don't have that data on hand right now. But I am aligned with you in suspecting that the rate of home building to job growth would be a better indicator of the real housing market change (as opposed to the ratio of new residential units/1k residents or, to a lesser degree, raw numbers of new residential units).
It is even more accurate to consider job growth in terms of income growth. Job growth could very well go negative but if it means replacement of a working population with one of higher income, that also contributes to upward pressure on prices from this high income job growth.
Even worse for the supply side crunch is that this high income population is not like the previous population in the sense that they aren't as sensitive to this given price level. So demand based responses to price increases aren't seen until the prices are truly bewildering due to the amount of disposable income available for some of these workers that could be spent on housing.
Houston in Dallas who can simply expand externally into new land are hardly a proxy for a land real estate constrained city like New York that has to build vertically
And how is their mass transportation going? As if houses alone are all that matters.
What is actually unconscionable is that when the nature and consequences of inflationary money are exposed, the discussion immediately gets shut down. If the people were to understand what real money is, and it is not the national currency, then people would hold it instead of holding the national currency. Hint: real money is things like GLD/VTC/BTC/PAXG/XMR. Secondly, people also are instructed by the consumerist system to spend as much as they earn, effectively to not save or invest. Controlling the narrative about money is how the rich control the poor.
Can you use it for the main uses of money, store value and payment? No, you cannot, because it's very volatile, and very slow and expensive to transact it.
It's as much "real money" as worn t-shirts from sports players are.
The volatility comes with its reward, which is price dips for buying cheaply and price appreciation. Bitcoin Lightning Network is its solution which is cheaper to transact in for those that accept it. Personally I would use Monero for transactions.
it was not deceptive. the words I wrote were said by Trump verbatim. please watch the video. I didn't remove the word "criminal" from the middle of the sentence.
At the risk of stating the obvious: This qualifier is void. Trump thinks anything people say that he doesn't like is criminal or can be made-to-be.
FFS the man has said a 60 Minutes' interview with President Zelenskyy (which painted Trump in an unflattering light) is a crime that validates destroying an entire television network.
"Herr Hitler clearly said that he would only be sending criminals to the next round of concentration camps, editing that out seems shady."
The most-charitable explanation is that you are clueless about current events, and don't understand that the government is already committing crimes against innocent people and lying about it.
Otherwise:
> Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
There's nothing "vague" about the past couple of weeks of news, court-cases, admissions, and flat-out bragging by the administration. Stop feigning ignorance.
> staking out a pro-deception stance
The real pro-deception stance is yours: Demanding that known falsehoods and propaganda be repeated verbatim.
> There's nothing "vague" about the past couple of weeks of news, court-cases, admissions, and flat-out bragging by the administration. Stop feigning ignorance.
Pretending not to know what "vague" means isn't an argument.
> The real pro-deception stance is yours: Demanding that known falsehoods and propaganda be repeated verbatim.
Expecting honest quotations is pro-deception. Got it. Good chat, Beelzebub.
If you share a quote out of context, knowing that it will be taken to mean something other than what it obviously meant in context, you are being deceptive.
