Apple is one of many companies that chose to source their components overseas. If they didn't, no one would be buying their products because they would be priced so much higher than competitors.
Being educated isn't really representative of Hacker News. There are very clear dynamics here where being more knowledgeable makes the discussions irrelevant.
There are generally two ways of doing hard things. Either you are knowledgeable enough to be aware of the challenges and work around, or overcome, them. Or you are unaware, or shameless, enough to do it anyway. The later is much easier than the former. (Then you also have those who believe they could do something but never does because they can't). (Also not entirely mutually exclusive).
Sometimes this is a feature of education, but most of the time it is just a feature of ignorance. Being educated doesn't also prevent you from being ignorant. It is very much expected that most willing to do something hard are smart enough to do it, but not smart enough to do it well. Unless it's been made easier, but then it is no longer as hard.
It is also perception. Knowing both software and hardware would make you a technologist, or when talking about hardware someone who knows hardware but also knows software. Not knowing hardware but talking about it would more likely make you perceived as someone who knows software. And going back to the beginning, it is easier to think you know software than to actually know it.
It isn't illogical. Americans move to suburbs because there aren't enough affordable cities. Then they complain about the cost of gas, energy, housing and taxes which are inherently worse with lower density.
Suburbs aren't for standard of living, but affordability. You take the most available labour, the most available construction, and connect it with the most available transportation and you get suburbs. All without the need for much effective planning, organization or innovation.
But eventually someone else does those things. And then suburbs are expensive in comparison.
I want more space, both in my home and in my yard, than I can get in the city. I want a 2+ car garage where I can build and drive a go-kart with my kids, fix my own car and have a little workshop to do woodworking.
I want a garden that isn't blanketed by city air, and room for some fruit trees. I want room for a fire pit, and enough trees that I don't have line of sight into my neighbors windows.
I don't want a farm. I don't need country living. Somewhere between 0.25 and 0.5 acres is about right for what I want to do, and that means the suburbs.
I live in a Cologne, Germany right now. I have lived in Sao Paulo in the past. Big cities with lots to offer. I know big cities and their conveniences, and they're fine. But for the life I want to live, suburbs offer a better standard of living.
That is the thing many young people don’t see until they have a kid and realize how much more difficult urban living is with kids unless you have a lot of money. Cities eat your time when you have kids.
That is still affordability. When cities are expensive you get more for you money in a suburb. A hobby room, home office or cooking space. But the cost of suburbs are inherently expensive. So when cities are affordable you get more for your money in a city. Because you get some space but also better access to things like offices, makerspaces or restaurants.
I don't want to rant to much, but most people don't like woodworking. They even less like doing woodworking on their own. It is something they conclude they should do because they can and don't have many alternatives. I'm sure it is covered somewhere online.
The first point is reasonable enough, but the point still stands you can't find the same size house in the city for the suburb price.
Most cities simply don't have more than a handful of spacious houses with big yards.
Your second point is invalid, as you're arguing against his assumptions. It's only possible to argue againt someone's logic, arguing someones assuptions is the same as calling names. I like woodwork and have alternatives.
You don't need the same space. That is the point. Yes, if I lived in a suburb I would also want more space because everything else would be harder to do.
I'm not arguing against their assumption. I said most, that isn't them. This is exactly why I didn't want to elaborate, so I won't.
A post explaining the reasoning behind a personal preference for living in the suburbs almost made you throw up?
Your close-mindedness of the opinions that others are allowed to have makes me almost want to throw up.
The person you are responding to isn’t displaying a lack of empathy for people that can’t afford to live in the suburbs. They are explaining the very real and understandable reasoning behind a behind their preference.
That’s not selfish and privileged. That’s a preference.
Look, I understand that the fringe groups you might associate yourself with throw around the word “privilege” as an insult at anyone that does something not inline with the group’s thinking, but it’s just not the insult that you think it is outside of those fringe groups.
Just wanted to mention that what the OP is asking for is completely achievable in a great urban city.
I live in an ideal mixed-use walkable neighborhood with a 2.5 car garage (that only holds one electric car). Not every house has that nor should it, but we can certainly build those features for those who want them and maintain walkability and good transit practices alongside mixed use.
The problem with the suburbs isn’t the existence of the single family home, the problem is the zoning and design of the homes.
> Man, this almost made me throw up because your post reaks of selfishness and privilege. Anyways, I hope you're at least aware of your extreme privilege.
This doesn’t convince anyone of anything and it doesn’t help us with building better transit and walkable neighborhoods. When you tell someone that what they want is “extreme privilege” and “selfish” you turn them away from the conversation. Instead we should focus on showing them how their lifestyle isn’t actually incompatible with good urban planning and good transit, because it’s not.
The future of American cities isn’t NYC, which I love and adore. We won’t have the density for that and skyscrapers and that level of density have their own problems too. Instead, we should look at mid-sized European cities and towns as a better model. We may have more single family homes and cars, but we can still build at the appropriate level of density and build different types of dwellings to meet people where they are in their life. Today it’s illegal to build an apartment building, coffee shop, restaurant, or small grocery store in the suburban neighborhood and we can’t build small, affordable units for folks either. This creates pricing imbalances and other issues.
A house with a big yard in the suburbs is the epitome of “standard of living” as far as I’m concerned. I’d take that over a walkable city block any day (personal choice, of course, I’ve lived in both).
Yeah, I live in a rural area and cities make my skin crawl. I'll take my quiet space with lots of room for my kids to play, explore, and to garden and grow food. Where I know everyone and we all have each others backs. Where the vegetation is natural, and there's plenty of bugs and birds, amphibians and mammals. Clean air and clean water. Surrounded by miles and miles of forests.
So many of the things people love about cities are the things I want to get away from, and would sacrifice a huge amount of income to do so.
The suburbs offer people a little taste of that magic and it's no suprise people want that.
You don't have to ban cities to get all that though, there are such areas all over Europe as well just that people prefer the density more until they have kids, and then they move further out to get a house with a yard and need a car.
I've lived in both and prefer the suburb. Inner city has all sorts of issues, from very little space, smokers puffing away as you try to enter/exit buildings, endless harmful noise & smells.
Actually I prefer rural over either of these..
> Almost everyone except politicians is critical of big corporations, yet they're ever growing like a tumor, leaving small mom-and-pop businesses by the wayside.
Unfortunately that isn't really true. Many might think the idea of being local is reasonable, but they don't really support it.
It's the same with startups. Many like they idea but ask them how to get affordable housing, healthcare and transportation so you can actually make ramen profitability, burn rate and opportunity cost work and they will at best ramble about zoning, taxes and bureaucracy.
Most of the time it isn't someone else doing it. Not the politicians, not the corporations, but the local population themselves. They are the ones lowering taxes, defunding colleges, buying cars, going to big box stores and supporting their local mini real estate tycoons. Until everyone who can leave for a bigger place. Which while not local have enough verity that you can carve out your own space.
People are even going to Thailand, Argentina, Portugal, China and other places to get a different lifestyle. They would go just about anywhere there was actual support for the local community. And sure, it isn't like other bigger developments doesn't affect the situation, but it is 'on the ground' that the changes are happening.
Why are you asking startups to change your politics? Go organize if you want to fix zoning. Business shouldn't be asked to do that, or you go down a path you will not be happy with.
I'm not asking startups to change politics. The opposite. It is often literally like I said. You ask someone do you support startups? Yes. Do you support innovation? Yes. Do you support education? Yes.
So where in your region can I live to have runway to start a business? Where can I find a space to do some manufacturing? How can I attend the local college? Well, actually... *excuses*.
Most just blatantly doesn't support their local community. They complain that the business are closing then defund and sell everything local, lower taxes and spend the money elsewhere.
I wish it was more complex than that, but in most cases it isn't. In many cases the local car dealership and contractors are doing well. Because that is what they actually prioritize and spend money on in those communities.
Bingo, everyone wants to pass the buck and blame some nefarious evil corp while they drive ever further out into the burbs, constantly vote to lower taxes and complain loudly whenever their communities try to do anything that might benefit everyone at the expense of the sight lines of a half dozen property owners. OP should ask a librarian who's the bigger threat, Walmart or their neighbors.
Unsafe air travel has been regulated out of existence in the best regions. Piloting a small airplane in a random country is still dangerous though. Unfortunately it is hard to avoid doing the equivalent in a car.
In theory it would be possible to create a safe driving car that would avoid unsafe roads, conditions, mental state, amount of driving, driving practices, speeds, distances etc. But a lot of the time it would just end up not being compatible with the road system and owning a car. And it still wouldn't totally prevent an accident, especially not caused by anyone else.
> Piloting a small airplane in a random country is still dangerous though. Unfortunately it is hard to avoid doing the equivalent in a car.
As someone who does both, the former is still controlled in a way we just don't do for cars.
Note that the moment we go to countries that are actually willing to take people's driver's licenses (and put them in jail when they drive without one, the way you'd expect to be treated flying a plane unlicensed), the safety statistics change. The only way we're getting that in America, however, is with self-driving cars.
I've seen that many times over by now, sort of done it myself. It doesn't really work. You end up replacing one problem for another. There is also a heavy dose of procrastination and escapism related to it. Think about how many could, and does, do it and but how few results there are.
All it took was one bored patent clerk spending idle time thinking about something that he couldn't just let go and now we have General Relativity and black holes.
Actually, at least in the UK, Ubers are licensed by local councils. They have all sorts of stupid restrictions like if they drive someone to another city they cannot pick up any passengers there so they have to drive back empty even if a customer could have booked the journey. This is Enforced, DRM style, by the app. The same rule exists for local private hire companies but they can ignore it when it makes sense to.
Surely you have already seen it, but for anyone else that finds this interesting there is "No Maps for These Territories". A close to 25 year old documentary with Gibson talking that is still enjoyable. Can be found on The Internet Archive and YouTube.
