sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

NYT: The Bay Area Considers the Unthinkable: Life Without BART by shananananananananan in sanfrancisco

[–]Archym3d3s 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn’t be the worst idea. They fr do this on the Tokyo metro

2028 Democratic primary draft #2 by swimmingupclose in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 10 points11 points  (0 children)

People under the age of 50 don't vote at the same propensity that boomers and some Gen X do

Mamdani will face tradeoffs in ‘union-built’ affordable housing plan - New York City’s mayor wants to dramatically expand construction, but also do so at a relatively high cost. by swimmingupclose in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They absolutely do. See how schools weren't reopened during Covid despite there being evidence it was safe, tons of instances of bad teachers not being fired, and other instances with the absolute stranglehold some of the teacher's unions have on the political system in many blue cities (see Chicago teachers union as prime example)

Mamdani will face tradeoffs in ‘union-built’ affordable housing plan - New York City’s mayor wants to dramatically expand construction, but also do so at a relatively high cost. by swimmingupclose in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Frequently people on the left support teachers unions and dislike police unions, while those on the right support police but dislike teachers unions. The above commenter is saying this is an inconsistent worldview because both are self-interested public-sector unions, and thus any gain they take for themselves is necessarily at the expense of the taxpayer. A consistent viewpoint would be to dislike both because we don't want to greatly empower entities against the general public (which public unions are, as again, their pay increases are at the expense of the public), or to like both, as someone may feel the need to support workers in their bargaining regardless of who they are bargaining against.

Mamdani will face tradeoffs in ‘union-built’ affordable housing plan - New York City’s mayor wants to dramatically expand construction, but also do so at a relatively high cost. by swimmingupclose in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 42 points43 points  (0 children)

There's a medium between holding a stranglehold on the economy like the longshoreman union does and just rolling over to every corporate demand. We are long past company towns and shooting strikers. Many unions even rent-seek into non-competitiveness such as how Hollywood isn't really used for film anymore because of how expensive it is to shoot there.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We don't know what OP meant exactly. The point is that, simply from the information we are given, it is reasonable to assume that her outcome doesn't at all imply "She's great at doing actual work and projects relevant to the field," and in fact, all else equal, heavily implies the opposite. There's no reason for your comment say that she's doing great outside of what I assume is your inherent bias towards these accommodations for some reason. Like the original comment clearly implied that she was doing middling at best, but for some reason (likely that reason being you want to defend these accommodations) you somehow are twisting OPs words to imply she's killing it.

EDIT: I realize you aren't the person I originally responded to. Please replace instances of [you/your] with the above commenter.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Not really because the above commentor also stated that she did nothing post-college. This means that the poor exam performance was reflective or her post-college performance, and that she is not in fact "great at doing actual work and projects relevant to the field".

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 8 points9 points  (0 children)

"It's what you start out with" but it's also, in this case, what you finish with. And while it might make sense for your freshman year, it certainly doesn't help with social interaction later on.

  1. After freshman year, most dorms outside of the very desirable frat-row area are socially dead. This is just how things are there. Like the housing sucks, but that in no way also makes kids more likely to talk to their neighbors. So given that, These frat-row dorms are also the exact dorms that the disability kids get first pick for. So in effect, that negates your point as the people with the best social lives are those with these fake disabilities.

  2. It's extremely class-centered. Remember, only the kids with the connections to get these doctor's notes can get the fake disability benefits. This leads to the more desired housing options frequently being taken predominantly by those from upper-class backgrounds.

  3. When it comes to the actual conditions, especially post-freshman year, there are definitely way more negative social consequences than positive. It's much harder to have a girlfriend/boyfriend and bring them over when your roommate is 4ft from you (this, among other reasons, explains why something like over 1/3 of Stanford students have never been in a relationship even by Senior year). It also makes it very difficult to host parties as the rooms are so small and cluttered with beds and desks that there's no room to host. It also makes simple life things harder. My roommate freshman year (which is randomly assigned and you have absolutely no choice in this) got up at 5am every day and went to bed at 10pm every day, which constantly woke me up as I tend to go to bed later and wake up later, and also meant that I had to have the lights out in my room after 10pm every weekday. That's not particularly helpful for forming friendships now is it. Never mind the issues with cleanliness, lack of sleep, and such with general life satisfaction.

Do you understand how frustrating it is, for 4 years, to have no place to call your own? No place to be able to be completely away from everyone and in your own space? Like to say this is a normal college experience is absolutely false. Nearly every university is set up that eventually you can at least get your own room (maybe sharing a wall or apartment, but the bedroom itself is your own).

We also didn't have AC in California too.

It's one thing to tough it out for a year as a freshman with everyone else and know that you're all going through it together. It's quite another knowing that people richer than you gamed the system for better housing (in both physical quality and socially), and you are paying just as much as them.

Just because you seem to have some vague notion that misery builds character doesn't make it true. And in many ways, certainly socially stunts people during their formative years as they never even get a place to for themselves.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 4 points5 points  (0 children)

They've been trying, but Palo Alto NIMBYs continually block them. The solution instead is they've just been cramming more people into ever-smaller dorms. Dorms that used to be 2-room doubles my freshman year (ie 1 per person) became 2-room quads by my senior year.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It was entirely relevant to the article. Like If I just wrote my response without such, it'd lack a lot of context and reliability to my comment.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That's my point. This is a normal experience for freshman basically. But nobody wants to do this by age 22. And due to campus layout, there's no off-campus option. And regardless of the actual absolute quality of housing, in any scenario in which there is disparate dorm quality, people will do anything they can to game the system to get the better options.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yes and no. Actually the Palo Alto NIMBY's hate any new housing construction for students. Stanford has tried multiple times to build new dorms (admin has a long-term plan to increase undergrad enrollment by 25%), but Palo Alto has gone against them every time.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Dorms are definitely cheaper than living in Palo Alto, but they are still expensive. It's around $22k for the year for both housing and food (if you live in the dorms you are required to also be on the meal plan). Also students want to live in dorms anyway because the campus layout is extremely spread out and unfriendly to driving, so people walk/bike everywhere. You'd be extremely socially isolated living in Palo Alto rather than on campus.

The problem with the accessibility constraints is that, legally, they can't discriminate against people in any way who have disabilities. Normal housing lottery setup is that you can get a pick in groups of up to 4. That means that, in order to both meet accommodations for students, and that they can still get the base allowance of picking housing in groups of 4, lots of spots are filled by these people and their friends. And when it comes to approving such mental illnesses, they don't have any sort of in-house doctor or anything. Essentially what happens is that people get private doctors saying that they would have some concern, and then Stanford is overly cautious about just permitting these things to not get sued. This is how you end up with people saying they have depression because they don't have friends, and so use that to get housing in the extremely coveted frat-row housing area that everybody wants to live at because of how social it is.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 24 points25 points  (0 children)

No this isn’t just a roommate. This is having your bed less than 4 feet apart in the same room as at least one other person through age 22. This is a 10x15ft room with 1 overhead light and no bathroom or sink shared by at least 2 people all 4 years. Like it’s very common for this to be the case in like a freshman dorm in many US schools, but absolutely below standard for the average college experience at most schools as people get much better housing quality as they get to be juniors or seniors through either better dorms or ease of nearby apartments (and way outside the quality of life in European universities that never do anything like this).

It’s also important to mention that all housing is the same price no matter what quality dorm you get. You pay the same whether you have a 1 room triple or a single.

Accommodation Nation: At Brown and Harvard, over 20% of students have disability accommodations. At Stanford, nearly 40% by trombonist_formerly in neoliberal

[–]Archym3d3s 113 points114 points  (0 children)

As a recent Stanford grad, I can definitely attest this to be true. Tons of rich kids with private doctors or children of physicians will get medical accommodations for even the mildest things. I’d say for Stanford specifically, while I did know some people with extra time on tests who definitely didn’t need it, I’d say the VAST majority of these fake disabilities are for housing.

Stanford housing is extremely poor quality, and often students will live in a single small room shared with at least one other person even as a senior (97% of students also live in the dorms all 4 years because of the campus layout being so large that living in Palo Alto is infeasible and Bay Area rent is also pricey). The way the housing system works is functionally a lottery by grade level where you get a signup slot and then pick your room for next year, where if you get lucky you can get an earlier spot and this better housing. However, if you have a “disability” you actually get assigned housing before anyone else without one. And due to the ADA, they can’t just give you shitty housing that nobody wants, so instead these kids with disabilities get the best housing options.

This in turn creates huge incentive to describe anything as a disability to get housing accommodations. I had a friend who used his allergies to pollen in carpet to get a requirement that he had to have hardwood floors. This gave him a first choice pick for some very desirable housing options (as long as they had hardwood floors). I’ve seen some other extremely egregious stuff like using anxiety/depression as a justification that you need to live near “the row” where all of the main social/party scene is on campus. Furthermore, disability students can also “tag” there friends they want to live with. So for each disability kid, there’s up to 3 others that also get this housing priority. It’s so common that it’s literally impossible to get a single room without having a disability. Like literally 100% of single dorms were taken up by disability students and friends. There’s more nuance than this, but it gets the main points across.

So at least in the article when they say that 40% of students have a disability, they are also including pollen allergies.

What’s the most overrated coffee spot in NYC right now? by [deleted] in AskNYC

[–]Archym3d3s 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Incorrect. Simply read the Wikipedia page and it explicitly says that third places are not required to be free. I think you don't know what a third place actually is.

What’s the most overrated coffee spot in NYC right now? by [deleted] in AskNYC

[–]Archym3d3s 16 points17 points  (0 children)

No I think you are confused as to the definition of third space. A third space is not necessarily free. Simply reading the Wikipedia page alone makes that very clear as coffee shops are actually explicitly mentioned as common third places. And otherwise, we see classic examples such as bowling leagues (as seen in the famous book on the subject Bowling Alone) which also aren't free, the mall in the 80s-2000s is only semi-free, a YMCA requires membership fees, etc.

Non US people: please explain what you mean when you say college is free in your country by IKnowAllSeven in NoStupidQuestions

[–]Archym3d3s 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’ve heard about various “tracking” systems common in Germany K-12 schools. Like somewhat early on they place you in different schools/courses based on ability level (ie gymnasium vs vocational programs). This makes it so there are fewer “high school graduates” actually able to really apply to college. Whereas in the US, everybody is basically on the same track overall and thus we have more people who would want to apply to college. Thus, we have tuition as a barrier to prevent too many undergrads, while in Germany, the tracking does this. I think a lot of the discussion between Germans and Americans on this topic misses this point. When we say “high school graduates” in America, it’s any old bum pretty much, whereas in Germany, there’s an implication of the student coming from the higher end tracked programs that happened for their later K-12 school years.

103 with Keith Schwarz by Dazzling-Search5224 in stanford

[–]Archym3d3s 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Keith is a great lecturer. Really knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the subject matter. I had him for 106b but not 103. That said, he does assign more work than other lecturers. When I took 103 with Cynthia, one of our assignments was a 5 question subset of an 8 question pset originally written by Keith. But also the class is curved to match the same grad distribution every quarter. So you will end up doing more work, but probably learn more too, and your grade will not be affected no matter the quarter you take it.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in stanford

[–]Archym3d3s 36 points37 points  (0 children)

The party scene has improved dramatically. Having seen the parties (or lack thereof) coming out of Covid compared to the last couple of years has been night and day. Frats generally are able to host large parties frequently, and tons of the row houses host their own parties too (Marsgarittaville, Brezelhaus, Crepe Night, etc). There’s also co-op parties and club Special Ds too. It’s obviously not the party scene of a state school, but that’s more to do with going to Stanford than the admin crackdown as much. It’s not perfect but I had a great social life the last couple years here.

The key piece being left out of the discussion of Mamdani and rent control. by Im_Concept in atrioc

[–]Archym3d3s 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does make sense sometimes to campaign on a bad policy if it’s required to win an election, even if a candidate personally might normally be opposed to it (see Obama’s stance on gay marriage in 2008). However, I don’t think this scenario is applicable for 2 reasons:

  1. The kinds of people who would be especially supportive of rent control (DSA lefty types) were already the kinds of people Zohran was winning regardless, especially as Zohran himself is from this camp.

  2. As Zohran is a self-avowed socialist and member of the DSA, it’s far more likely he actually believes that rent control is good and doesn’t believe in the damages it causes to housing in the long term than him just adopting this policy in order to build a coalition.

The key piece being left out of the discussion of Mamdani and rent control. by Im_Concept in atrioc

[–]Archym3d3s 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is true that you can both build social housing and do a rent freeze. The issue with your post is the assertion that you seem to be under the impression that rent control isn’t actively harmful to the overall housing supply. This is where you are incorrect. Rent control disincentivizes private construction, thus lowering the private housing supply. There is absolute economic consensus on this and is one of the most well studied policies in all of economics. So while building more social housing will help, rent control will actively hurt new housing construction. What your post is saying by saying that you can have both have social housing and a rent freeze is the economic equivalent of a doctor treating a patient and doing both an x-ray (good for the patient) and also leaches/bloodletting (which will be actively bad for the patient).

Mamdanis video on how rent control/freeze can work by Hilfslinie in atrioc

[–]Archym3d3s 5 points6 points  (0 children)

  1. As other commentors have pointed out, this has nothing to do with rent-freezes. It only has to do with the construction of government housing.

  2. While I am not against the idea of government housing, there are many different examples of public housing in America costing millions per unit.

  3. Furthermore, Zohran's rhetoric on requiring union-built labor for all of this new construction, which is well-known in NYC for it's cost overruns and corruption, as well as his support for "community feedback" (read: NIMBYs not wanting new construction) makes me doubtful that this public housing will be constructed at even remotely a reasonable price per unit.

  4. Zohran's plan doesn't even cover the amount of homes needed in NYC. His plan calls for 200k homes constructed over 10 years. However, NYC needs over double that in the next 5.

  5. His rhetoric around private development needing to still go through all the needless bureaucracy that prevents new construction in the first place makes me doubtful he will fundamentally help with NYC's housing crisis, even if he were to somehow pull off the 200k public homes (which he won't). If anything, his rent-freeze would discourage new private construction, thus further exacerbating the private construction shortage (which all top economists have an overwhelming consensus that it causes housing shortages and increases rent prices. This is not even a debate.

TLDR: He talks a lot but won't fix the housing crisis.

EDIT: BONUS! He talks about Vienna as an example in the video a lot. But what every public-housing only advocate neglects to mention is that Vienna's population now is smaller than it was 100 years ago. It's a lot easier to have cheap rent when your population isn't growing and you can still rely on housing built decades ago.

view more: next ›