verbatim llm output with little substance to it.
HN mods don't want us to be negative but if this is what we have to take serious these days it is hard to say anything else.
I guess I could not comment at all but that feels like just letting the platform sink into the slopacolypse?
It's nice that they would admit this, but it seems a little strange that they would. Why not just never add new features and let people figure it out on their own? A big statement like this seems more like implicitly killing the platform, which is what they say they aren't doing.
I guess the best way to interpret this is that they are killing the platform over time but they don't want to kill it right now since money is still coming in and it would make too many customers mad.
Two comments about this...
- "Housing as investment" might not be the best policy
- Side effect of above, people have strong incentive to ignore all the negative externalities caused by that policy (ie, sprawl and lots of car mileage when society would better with more compact towns)
You’re allowed to advocate for your own interests, but there are limits to what you’re actually allowed to accomplish with that advocacy. At least in the US. You can’t just pass laws to confiscate the wealth of your political opponents, for instance. You can advocate for it (free speech), you just can’t do it.
I think the ROI criticism is generally off the mark. Most homeowners that resist rezoning, etc. are concerned about quality of life issues rather than home values (although those are aligned if significantly lower quality of life reduces home values). For example, the idea that I'd benefit if my area was upzoned because I could sell my home/land for much more doesn't appeal to me at all. I don't want to sell my home, and I don't want the neighborhood to change around me in a way that I would eventually want to.
In the Federal model of US government, state authority overrides centralized government except in the explicit cases enumerated by the Constitution.
So yes, of course they mean their local officials, because in this case there isn’t an explicit line in the Constitution explaining why the feds are allowed to invade Minnesota.
The Supreme Court has disagreed with you on the matter of federal immigration constitutional authority for more than a century. There isn’t any “invasion”; that’s a propaganda device.
reply