Well, thanks for eating up a bunch of my time, too. It feels like some of the data its using for hazards is wrong. My current county gets excluded by "avoid hurricanes" and "avoid tornados", where I don't remember there ever being a tornado (definitely nothing major), and hurricane risk is very low (not directly coastal).

"Tornado" is way too wide - there are some places where they're more common, but even there the chance a tornado hits where you are is still low.

Where I am we had a big tornado 120 years ago and we're still talking about it. So we're in a "tornado danger area" but ... snow is the much bigger danger.

If you can find a pre-war (WWII) neighborhood there is actually still a decent amount of walkability. The issue is that these neighborhoods are typically the first to be gentrified and are likely very expensive. Small to mid sized southern towns typically have a nice dense pre-war core nieghborhood with high levels of tree cover and small businesses within walking distance which is nice.

Great website! thanks a lot for that.

This seems to confirm my intuition. Our parameters spit out southern california and a few places in Texas, including Austin.

SoCal is still incredibly expensive. I considered Austin before but I'm a bit concerned about politics. Although I know it's a bit of a progressive bubble, Texas is still overwhelmingly and overly conservative, so that might be a big drag.

> Texas is still overwhelmingly and overly conservative, so that might be a big drag.

Kind of, keep in mind ~50% of Texas votes Democrat, Republicans just squeeze wins. Also keep in mind that Texas Democrats are not like national Democrats, and I'd hardly call Austin something like "progressive". It marches to its own tune, which is just fine for Texas.

> Kind of, keep in mind ~50% of Texas votes Democrat

In Presidential elections, since 1976, the range is 37.1% to 51.1% with 46.5% in 2020 the highest since the 51.1% which was in 1976. The median in that time period has been 41.4%.

Sounds about right, there's more variance for local and state elections. Definitely doesn't fit the narrative that a lot of folks like to run with about Texas.

Personally speaking, I'd go back to Texas if it stayed purple-ish and didn't adopt or drive national narratives of either party.

If you go back to '74, gubernatorial elections are pretty similar in distribution to the Presidential since '76, but with less recent strength; you've got a narrow Dem majority in '74, a plurality win by a Democratic in 1990, and a lot of big blowout wins by Republicans, with all but one after 1994 being 10-point or greater margins ('98 was over 30 points, 2006 was a hair under 10 points, but it was also a weird four way race.)

“~50%” as the typical Democratic share of the vote in Texas requires a generous interpretation of the approximation symbol.

It doesn't matter how the local government votes as long as the state government is run by people who are actively committed to making LGBTQ+ people's lives hell.

The state government is actively criminalizing any kind of gender-affirming treatment for LGBTQ+ youth, and there's nothing the local governments in Dallas or Austin can do about it. If I had kids, I would have already uprooted my family and left the state months ago.

Right now, as someone who lives alone I'm torn between wanting to get the hell out of here before they come for adult trans people and knowing that I'm going to be miserable no matter where I move because I love everything else about Dallas and absolutely no other city will be just like it. I'll just be a bitter, miserable refugee for the rest of my life.

I hope you hang in there, friend. I don’t know how long it will take, but I’m optimistic and hopeful that the state will not support the kind of extreme social positions the party in power is driving beyond maybe another two or three election cycles max.

> The state government is actively criminalizing any kind of gender-affirming treatment for LGBTQ+ youth

That's a good thing, considering that "gender-affirming treatment" is a euphemism for sterilizing the child, excising healthy body parts, and leaving them with lifelong health issues.

If they really want to go through all that, they can wait until they're an adult and see if it's still an issue then. A child cannot possibly give meaningful consent to these procedures.

Neat tool! Unfortunately my temperature preferences restrict me to some of the most expensive places in the US!

Cold and wet weather is great. When climate change renders the southwestern United States and large parts of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia uninhabitable, people will be ready to kill for the right to live in a cold and wet weather.

Here's a great example of someone fully in thrall to the idea of anthropocentric warming as an apocalypse myth.

This view has as little grounding in reality as the idea that we will be able to burn oil forever with zero consequences

As with most things, reality is somewhere in the middle. The climate apocalypse cult is doing real damage to the mental health of the youth:

https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platf...

While I agree that having a modicum of restraint about making claims of Mad Max being imminent is prudent, I also believe that this is coming to a head at least during our children's lifetime, if not ours.

The earth isn't hosed tomorrow - we've probably got a couple of decades yet, but the writing is on the wall. OP can plan according to their risk appetite. I'm sure as heck not trying to buy a million acre ranch in Wyoming right now, that's for sure.