People were always amazed at how our kids went to bed with no problems. In that spirit I offer what worked for us which may not work for anyone else. First we limited nap time. Second we did the exact same routine every night. Rocking and a bottle then bed. When they got bigger it was rocking, reading some books, bottle then bed. Then we added in teeth brushing. Every night same thing. Bed time was lights out (with night light) and stay in bed if you need anything holler. I’d go back a few times for “I’m hot/cold can’t sleep” then they’re out. Wake up same time every day. I love routine so it’s easy for me. Others may struggle.
Not necessarily. If you add density to an existing lot, your land increases in value, and since it’s likely the majority of the value of your property, your property probably goes up in value. Then, the increased supply decreases the cost of shelter.
How does it not reduce demand for land? Eg right now if I wanted to live in one of these places, I virtually have to compete to buy a plot of land that I alone own.
With high density housing, me and another few hundred people who would have been demand for land can instead buy condos or rent apartments and share that plot of land. Our demand was satisfied for fractions of a percent of the supply it would have taken with low density housing.
Ie high density housing efficiently uses land, thereby reducing demand for it.
Some areas will be gentrified and be worth more. If I were going to guess, the downtown core will spike in value and the suburbs will have to drop in value to compete with the affordability of downtown living.
I suspect a lot of people would live downtown instead of the suburbs if they could get a 2/3BR that wasn’t 4x the cost of living in the suburbs.
That's a single plot, increasing density by maybe a factor of 6, at absolute best. If enough units come onto the market to relieve the so-called shortage, prices necessarily drop.
In any case, the problem might very well be, directly, that prices are too high, because it has invited speculation and warehousing. Inventory as the crux might be wrong.
They're claiming we can see both, because the number of people sheltered per unit of land will have increased.
While I see this as plausible in some cases, I also think it's sweeping a big error constant into "housing affordability" if we're saying that the kind of housing "affordable" to one generation is of a different kind than was realistic for the preceding generation. If your parents could afford a single family home with a yard and you can afford an apartment in a building put up where someone's single family home used to be ... surely we can agree that actual housing affordability meaningfully decreased?
Thanks, this is a great explanation. It seems like these "nm" indicators are much like measuring a car's power in "horsepower". It is certainly measuring something real but its connection to actual horses has long since atrophied.
I don't think so. There has to be a plausible survivor for survivorship bias. Living forever is advantageous to being a member of a survival cohort, and yet survivorship bias hasn't discovered any immortal people. Is there a plausible reason for things to exist that would explain why existence survived as an outcome?
And Gab's rivals use their megaphones to say less-than-flattering things about white people, men, etc. You're not going to escape bias or vitriol by sticking to one echo chamber. Not in this cultural climate, at least.
7. Need to understand that drunk person staggering along the roadside has been repeatedly slipping off the sidewalk and there's a non-zero chance they trip and fall right in front of you.
8. Need to understand that sometimes the stripes you see aren't the real stripes, you're driving near sunset and are seeing the sun reflected off of old stripes that were painted over with glossy black (wtf WSDOT).
7.5. Need to understand that the drink person staggering _inside_ the robotaxi has just thrown up in the backseat. After they are dropped off, the robotaxi cannot pick up any new customers.
This is a dance move known as the "tenderloin lurch". Well, not really, the Tenderloin Lurch is when a person staggers up to a crosswalk, waits until they have a NO WALK sign and proceeds to cross, while ignoring all the drivers who about to run them over.
I've been in situations like this. In SF. I grew up here.
What you describe is the classic west coast non-confrontationalism. You're probably annoying enough that it's simply not worth it to counter anything you say because you just dive into a petty and self-aggrandizing argumentative mode.
Brash and confused conservatives think everyone agrees with them, but in reality people don't want to get caught up in absolute bullshit by joining any kind of interaction with them. This is a common pattern by now. You would do well to recognize it.
$5000 a month? That's pretty embarrassing, isn't it? That indicates they aren't doing satellite-to-satellite and are using some kind of specialized hardware to simply send the signal to coastal satellites from farther away.
Inmarsat is the only viable alternative for smaller boats that offers unlimited data plans, has higher latency due to being geostationary, much lower bandwidth, and charges about $8000 for a gigabyte…
I‘m not sure what Ku or Ka band GEO providers charge, but I doubt you can find anything competitive there either, and these require very large antennas.
Considering the coverage map is mostly coastal waters, private LTE and 5g are the 'budget' competition (for now). In some areas like the Gulf of Mexico, a not insignificant portion of the water is serviced by LTE that you can roam onto using a conventional TMobile, Sprint or AT&T SIM, often without an additional cost.
Agreed, currently it does not seem to be competitive (Inmarsat also offers significant discounts on their coastal plans for the same reason). But with their projected coverage in Q4 2022 and Q1 2023, it's a very different story.
Compared to what their architecture should enable. Sure, it's more satellites consumed per request but there aren't _that_ many satellites between some random point in the Pacific and the nearest base station. Certainly seems like it's not scaling that well if the price jumps from ~$120 to $5000.
It seems more of a question of supply and demand than a limitation of their technology. If the competition currently charges more than $5000, why should they charge (much) less?
It is! But their architecture should enable them to hit a much lower price point. Maybe it's just charging what the market will bear? If this is what they need to charge to be profitable, though, that indicates the satellite-to-satellite approach doesn't scale well, or they've been losing money.
If you selling a service that doesn't yet exist (or where you are an order of magnitude cheaper than the competition), usually you want to charge as much as you can while still selling all your inventory.
Or maybe it's the Tesla Roadster of this particular long-term plan. Some scoff, others wait for the price on the upcoming tier that's not quite 350 Mbps...
Co-pilot is great when you have a repetitive programming task to perform. e.g. if you are nesting module imports through several layers of python init. Co-pilot is great at tab-completing `from myproject.some_module.nested_module.actual_module import Foo as Foo` and similar tasks.
