flavius29663
But even if you look at police murders on civilians, they are killing more whites than blacks. You might argue that whites are 5x more than blacks, but police has more interaction with blacks than with whites. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
I really don't buy this "minorities" are being killed story.
But yes, the temperature will increase slightly because of CO2 emissions. That triggers more warming due to feedback effects though, and those are hard to quantify, and more scary.
The Earth is warming, but how much of it is caused by humans is under debate. The Earth is still coming out of an ice age, so it would be warming even without humans.
Also, the more important question is: how much will it accelerate based on our emissions? If there are no positive feedback loops, it would only warm up 1C maximum, no matter how much more CO2 we will emit. But because of the positive feedback loops (warmer earth -> more water evaporating -> more warming), this warming can trigger a 4-5C further warming. The feedback loops are just theoretical(you can't measure them empirically) and the quality of the estimations is based on our understanding and modelling of the climate.
In my county, they are obliged by the contract to NOT bury the mixed recyclables. So they used to offload it to some companies that would then also promise not to bury them (pinky promise), and ship them to China. Contracts in China are then not so easy to follow and enforce and voila, problem is now somewhere else.
GPS can be jammed (see Russia-UKraine war), so inertial systems are still very important for rockets, for example some HIMARS rockets start with GPS and then rely only on inertial while getting close to target.
That means they can geofence to get a short list of suspects, and then file proper warrants for some of them if they have more clues?
If it wasn't for more water in the atmosphere, just CO2 warming, there would be no Global Warming crisis, it would be just a blip. And still, somehow people widely believe we'll overall be in desert-like conditions?
The science never said that. It was popsci, magazines and attention brokers that pushed that narrative. A warming world looks like Jurassic park, not Mad Max, but that doesn't sell, so they had to make it scary to sell it, hence the desertification narrative.
That does not mean anything. A car's engine contains only 10% of the parts in that car.
If you're profiting from it, it's not a bad idea.
If you want 11kWh/day, you need: (5.7 * 0.2) * Y = 11, so Y = 10 square meters. You can double check this: 10 sqm should have about 10KW of solar potential energy, but with PV efficiency you're getting about 2KW, so to reach 11kWh, you need 5 good hours of sunshine on average.
[1] https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/WLD/Yea...
Such journalism...
e.g. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/uploads/imported_images/uploads...
- build secondary escape doors and don't lock/block them
- have smoke detectors in every room
- have fire extinguishers in every building, and for large buildings for every 200sqm or so, and every floor.
For large commercial spaces, add sprinklers.
These are bare minimum things, but it would be better than what it's like today. And from there, they could slowly add more rules where it makes sense, and shutdown whoever is not implementing these.
Because most businesses were not compliant all of the sudden, the government couldn't just shut down everything, so they allow businesses and buildings to function without authorization, simply by filling in an affidavit saying you acknowledge firefighters didn't approve and you continue at your own risk. Even the capitol building, where the MPs "work" everyday, is without proper authorization! When you go to a nightclub, you don't know if they have an actual permit from the firefighters, or a mere affidavit...and you end up with disasters like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colectiv_nightclub_fire
This whole situation made everyone very complacent with fire safety, to the point it's worse than if people and businesses would have been left alone.
Even so, I wouldn't venture any number if you don't do some profiling or at least some tests with the most common data, and with edge cases. It can be anywhere between milliseconds and full seconds, maybe more?.
Reminds me of an interview once, I asked: the website is slow, you're in charge of it, what do you do? He just said "buy more servers"...slow down there, Rockefeller.
This seems like such an emotional response. The landlords are also controlled by mortgages if they are small, or by boards of directors - and shareholders if they are large.
The landlords can control the rent for their units, that's it.
As to investment properties vs affordable ones, there can be some issue there, for example if you buy a house just to park the money somewhere, but you don't rent it out, you keep it empty. That kind of behavior can be really damaging. These are the only kind regulations I would introduce: 1. don't allow properties to sit empty - tax them heavily. And 2. also don't allow airbnb's in highly troubled cities. Unless you're literally sleeping in the same house with the guests, airbnb's shouldn't be allowed for individual housing units.
> I don’t think housing should be an investment
Let's run a thought experiment: Let's assume you're a retired small business owner that has 5 million dollars in the bank. You can A. built a house in your city and rent it out or B. put the money on the stock exchange.
Everything else staying equal, which of the options would create more housing units in your city?
With housing it's more flexible: you can commute longer each day. You can just not move to a city where you know the "salary/cost of living" is not working in your favor. You can also time these decisions: go to NYC when you are in your 20s, live with some roommates to get some savings and then when you get older you can move to a more spacious city. You can be flexible about the space you need too: from 1 bedroom in a shared apartment, to a 3 beds detached house in a quiet suburb in another city, there is a lot of flexibility.
In a city there is a constraint on how much you can build, and everybody wants to be there. You can let the free market set the price, or you can try to distort the market with rent controls and then you end up with black markets, illegal payments, people holding on to their apartment for way longer they would normally do etc. Why would a 1 person ever move out of a large apartment if they have a low rent? They don't care that the same apartment would be a god-send for a family of 4...
Introducing rent control makes it even less likely to have new builds. Try to think like a millionaire that could potentially invest in real estate: would you buy a 2 million house not knowing that you can recoup that investment and also make a profit? Isn't it easier to just dump the money in an ETF and get 8% on the market?
> you need it to prevent landlords from just extracting more money
Why do you need to prevent people from making money? Would you like someone preventing bradlys from making that much money? How much is too much? If you work in tech like most people here, you're probably making more than 99% of the world.
Making money is not a problem, if there is money to be made in real estate, investors would flock to it, increasing supply and therefore decreasing prices and profits over time. The problem is when the economics are not allowed to float freely: because of rent control, limitations to building (like zoning laws), insufficient infrastructure (like being stuck on an island with bad connections) etc.