Norwegian Air does not serve free food on transcontinental flights. Fine by me, I'm comfortable surviving 12 hours without eating hot food, in fact I do it almost every day.
"Probability of death conditional on an accident" sounds like a statistic designed to fool people who really just care about the probability of death, preying on a cognitive error.
We know how to safe six-story buildings in SF are a solved prblem, and developers have no problem following building codes when zoning allows them to build 6 stories.
Cities are expensive for a reason - they are not just a Veblen good like a Mercedes AMG, mainly valuable due to scarcity. Cities are more like doctors - they are extremely useful, and we would all be better off if there were enough to go around.
Throughout US history there have been economically booming areas where people could move to become more prosperous. The majority of good new jobs are in cities. The fact that we are not building enough housing and transit infrastructure so people can actually live somewhere while working those jobs is a problem for national employment and economic growth. The landlords end up taking home a great share of the economic benefit instead of the workers as the price for scarce housing is bid up. This is also the root cause of gentrification.
This leads to megacommutes as people occupy housing further and further from the booming economy. That's clearly the case in the Bay Area, where many cities have built more units of office space than housing, guaranteeing a rough commute for the people who work in those buildings.
Can a Tesla reliably detect a body lying in the road? I think they would be very reluctant to avoid a highly survivable accident where the Tesla is not at fault, in favor of accelerating toward a crash site.
In my experience almost all candidates applying recently with an MS in CS have been H1B visa seekers. Presumably, many of them obtained the MS specifically because it increases the odds of winning the H1B lottery.
The Bay Area had several shady MSCS-granting institutions. Some of them have gotten in trouble with ICE.
Even at programs run by major public research universities, the same economic incentives apply.
It's always hard to tell the value-add of a degree apart from selection bias. This case is no different.
>Yes, but it still doesn't affect the (rational) landowner's decision. Imagine an improvement that can net the owner $Y a year in profit. A rational owner should always make that improvement, regardless of whether the government is also taxing them $X a year on the land.
It's not just about whether return is positive, it's about the highest ROI considering opportunity cost.
Consider a simple case where two lots with one story of development each can produce as much as a single lot with two stories of development. With a tax on land+improvements, a landlord does not prefer one over the other. With a tax on land value only, the single lot with two stories is preferred.
>If they doesn't have the money/capital to do so, they should sell the land to someone else.
Indeed. If the neighbors have ten stories of development, a landlord with a one-story building will not be able to afford the LVT and will sell to someone who can afford to build ten stories.
This the type of thing Google expends a lot of effort measuring. You can bet they know how much growth will be harmed per ad per hour and are tuning that parameter.
The original statement "They vast majority of poor in SF grew up there or in nearby areas, they didn't migrate there like the economic elite have." is simply not supported by this evidence.
Given historical population growth of California, I think it's not a winning argument. Very few of California's residents have moral ground to live here at the exclusion of others. Pretty much everyone moved here. The only way forward is to allow enough homes to be built for everyone who wants to live here.
The number of people in the area is greater than the number of homes. No amount of income redistribution can possibly fix this. If you rent a room for a homeless person, you are just going to price out the poorest person who can currently afford a room. The only way to fix this is remove people or build homes. The first option is better for the landed gentry, the second option is better for the nation as a whole.
I don't see any data about where people are from in that link. Just where they lived most recently. A good way to become homeless is to move into an unstable housing situation in a far away place with high rents.
Perhaps they didn't like the results then they just took the average, and spent some effort turning the formula and parameters to get their favored ordering.