staybailey

I think OP is on to something here. In particular the study design makes it hard to tease out issues specific to common knowledge verses anchoring or bias towards ones own knowledge. Notably each individual's information set makes B look worse than A or C.

I think the study would have been more compelling if the common knowledge favored A and C but each individual's total knowledge was neutral between the A,B and C. If results favored not B in that set up it would indicate that folks were specifically anchoring on the common knowledge itself rather than anchoring on their initial hypothesis.

What concretely changed after a year at the gym? Like did you get far more dating app matches? Were cold approaches in a public or social setting better received? Did women start approaching you when they didn't beforehand?

Wikipedia disagrees. Example: "In 1996, a federal jury ordered the city to pay a $1.5 million civil suit judgment to survivor Ramona Africa and relatives of two people killed in the bombing." The police commissioner was also forced to resign.

Presumably the lack of any contextualizing verbage. Like zero effort to connect the evidence presented with the assertion.

Notably the evidence presented has plain gaps. Consider the second link: "Goldstein's attorneys were unable to argue for protection under the First Amendment because the Supreme Court had ruled in 1915 that movies lacked such protection. (That ruling was overturned in 1952.)" That final parenthetical is critical because it suggests that a modern court would not rule the same way the court did in 1915 given similar facts.

To be clear, I don't have enough context to evaluate the merits of the statement in full just noting why it may have come across as glib and hence downvoted.

Companies like making money and historically class action lawsuits have made it easier for employees or customers to cut into profit margins based on wrongful action by the company. The incentive to join a class action suite was less than each individual filing there own case. Hence the dislike

But, as the article perhaps alludes to, the tide may be changing on that due to legal industry automation. If law firms can file nearly identical lawsuites at scale then the incentives can again favor consumers and employees. This may not have happened in this particular case due to courts being unable to scale, but it has happened to companies like DoorDash. See https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/business/story/...

> parking is probably private lots owned by the employer, not street parking. Picture a standard office park.

But this is still subsidized because regulations mandate that buildings have lots of parking. These regulations are typically quite extreme with requirements intended to support the 99.999% demand case (think peak hour of black friday) conditional on a parking price of $0. Most developments build the minimum amount of parking they can by law suggesting this isn't a free market outcome.

So if you want to have business you have to provide tons of parking and make up for it with higher prices for your goods and services. This subsidizes vehicle driving over other modes a transport. Especially so because giant parking lots make it harder to reach the store front by foot.

Google Donald Shoup for more context.

The standard solution to this is called an easement, which basically means I own the air rights over your property so that I can ensure my views are unobstructed.

Getting rid of the idea of owning the neighbors airspace entails figuring out how to fairly allocate easements that generally don't currently exist because of legacy reasons.

> These things only work for some of the residents (predominately younger residents without families).

Leaving aside the fact that seeing families on buses is not remotely uncommon, the same statement could be said of automobile modes. Those who can't legally drive (which probably constitutes a quarter of the US population) along with those too poor to afford automobiles are at least partially excluded from the benefits of automobile infrastructure. Given current technology, a transportation system for everyone needs to facilitate the use of a variety of modes, even if no particular mode serves everyone.

> And those parts of Chicago suffer economically for it.

Do you have any data for that? Most of the literature suggests that the provision of free parking reduces economic prosperity. The simple theoretical explanation is that parking should be provided at cost, just like most goods and services. But there is also empirical evidence to back this up. For instance when Old Pasadena raised street parking rates in the early nineties to deal with a dearth of parking in their commercial district: "The cities sales tax revenue tripled within the first year."* That's one anecdote, but consider googling Donald Shoup for more literature and data.

There are two additional theoretical benefits to using pricing to adequately supply parking. First, it favors persons who value their time relatively more than their money, which are exactly the kind of people who tend to buy stuff in stores. And two, increased parking rates can increase turnover, which in turn increases total sales. For more info on the importance of turnover, check out this SNL sketch: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-olympia-res...

*Speck, J. (2012). Walkable city: How downtown can save America, one step at a time. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (see page 134 for the quote on Google books).

Actually it isn't that hard. The land value is simply the property value minus the value of the depreciated physical capital (buildings etc.) on it (LV = PV - K). This calculation is already done in the market in order to determine the size of a home owners insurance policy. Property tax values aren't ideally precise, but are already common enough that replacing them with and land value tax wouldn't greatly impact tax code precision.

To address your more general critique, it might be better said that you are paying a location tax as opposed to a land tax. Specific locations have particular value and until we develop hand of god technology, putting multiple units of land in a given location will be impossible. So land vs. location is really just a semantic difference.

The theory is that people will drive more carefully if they perceive the roadway to be more dangerous. That is not the same as it actually being more dangerous.

Moreover, road safety is not fixed but rather dependent on the speed at which drivers drive on the road. Thus, if a roadway design causes drivers to drive slower on road B as opposed to road A, road B may be safer even if it would be less safe than road A if people drove the same speeds on both roadways. There is nothing particularly counter intuitive about this type of theory at all.

Also perceived danger to oneself doesn't take into account the risk one poses to others. This issue of externalities is what makes these 12 foot lanes so dangerous. As noted in the article, if drivers are driving slower, they are far less likely to kill or seriously injure pedestrians. And since F = (.5)mv^2 this is exactly what we'd hypothesize. Pedestrians are a non-issue on the rural highways that the 12 foot lane and other state road design measures are based on. But in the middle of a dense city, higher speeds, even if they aren't any less safe for the drivers, are far less safe for pedestrians and cyclists, not to mention far more unpleasant to be around. It is this concept, more than anything else, that traffic engineers are so often obtuse to.

And driver-less cars will have to be able to navigate the existing 10-foot lane roads anyways to be commercially viable, so I don't see how that is an issue.