Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | stackedinserter's commentslogin

HN, fix this stupid top navigation bar, or I'm leaving HN. Timer's started.

Name active Israel's adversaries that are not US adversaries.

All those who chant "death to Israel" happily attach "death to America" to it.


Why do you think that is?

Canadian banks still live in 2006. They can't even make EMT transfers more convenient, so people could request a payment or pay with QR.

Sometimes I feel like they don't actually refuse to do things, maybe they are not capable to improve. Something in their chain of command is broken and doesn't let them change.


The question is the result of these 2 hours in noise cancelling headphones.

Unpopular opinion: there's nothing wrong with NIMBY. It's totally ok to not volunteer to have a dumpster at your house. Society may want it, but they lose nothing, gain everything, and you're left with a house with dumpster nearby.

If society wants to put dumpster so badly, compensate to those who (practically) lose their house. Let everyone pay, that's fair. Picking "haha this will be the loser this time" is not.

It's easy to be YIMBY when you don't own anything.


Such a strange assumption that your neighborhood would get worse by increasing density.

It seems there’s some strange bias in play where NIMBYs are somehow fearful of density.

FWIW SFH economics isn’t sustainable in highly desirable areas. You have to redistribute wealth from workers to land owners (the CA model), or raise taxes commensurate to resource consumption. I suspect there’s a limit to how much feudalism the working class will allow, and if land owners had to pay for the resources they consume they’d have to densify anyway.

Really the whole thing survives on handouts from workers to landowners


> strange assumption that your neighborhood would get worse by increasing density.

I didn't make such assumption, I don't understand it either.


Hypothetically, what about allowing new property only of higher quality than existing ones? That way to assure it’s a net improvement for everyone

Quality is subjective. You would need an arbiter. For example, I would enjoy having an art collective and a funky performance space nearby, but I’m sure many people would consider that a downgrade

Everyone is nimby when it touches the most valuable thing in their life. You'll turn nimby once you buy a house. There's no lie, anyone will be against a landfill or skyscrapers near their house. If you think otherwise, you're lying.

There's nothing wrong with nimby.


I own a house and I don't give a shit what happens on the lot next to mine. Not my property, not my right to complain. So you're wrong. Also kind of rude for calling people liars when they disagree with you.

> Not my property, not my right to complain.

Unless you own a shitty property in a very bad area, you're clearly lying.


What if next door they put in a combination slaughter house and sewage treatment plant? What if they built a gigantic speaker pointed in your direction?

Or made a home for wayward youths who live yelling slurs?


They're either a troll, or a liar.

Do we really need FSD cars (any cars, actually) in medieval city centers?

That's why such thing as "vacant land" shouldn't exist. Have a land -> do something on it. If you don't -> sell it to someone who do, or pay taxes that double every year.

LVT is a much simpler and less destructive version of this idea.

You know what? Fuck this guy. And that one who found a 4-bedroom house on his land that he haven't used for decades.

They didn't do anything with their land and doesn't have any plans for it for the foreseeable future. It's not like a snowblower that sits in your garage unused. It's land, a piece of planet. If you own it, you should use it for something. If you don't, return it back to people.


This provision has first, last name and an address of a person who pushed it to the budget bill.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: