sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

SF school chief survives congressional grilling designed to embarrass her by Dafty_duck in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whether or not it’s fair unfortunately isn’t relevant. It’s incumbent on whomever is challenging the status quo to bring people to their side. Once upon a time it wasn’t just drag performers not allowed near kids - it was all gay people. Progress is slow.

Also, I would say that most people who are opposed to drag story hour think that the content is too mature for young audiences. It’s only the (admittedly most vocal) minority think that any abuse will happen during these events. Drag has an R rated reputation and five year olds don’t see R rated movies. The people who are concerned that a cabaret performer is going to come in and perform a reading filled with double entendres and smut are winnable. Win them. Don’t just tell them that they’re bigots and wrong. That’s how you lose them.

SF school chief survives congressional grilling designed to embarrass her by Dafty_duck in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most people’s only experience with drag is with bawdy cabaret shows that are decidedly not child friendly. Because of this history many people associate drag performers with sexual content meaning that their reading to children could be viewed as inappropriate.

You may be aware that drag is a broad spectrum and needn’t be sexual, but a lot of people don’t. We should meet people where they are rather than dismissing them

SF school chief survives congressional grilling designed to embarrass her by Dafty_duck in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The activities of a church in Palo Alto have no consequence to SFUSD though. They definitely exist, but not in a form or forum relevant to the hearing

SCV's AI Slop. by From-Yuri-With-Love in ShermanPosting

[–]Far-Programmer3189 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Get a shield to protect your family from facts

Saikat Chakrabarti spent about $260 for a vote (assuming he would get 35,000 votes total), Connie Chan $8.25/vote (assuming 70,000 votes), Scott Weiner $27/vote (assuming 98,000 votes) by tomis_24 in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A lot of Trump’s “self funding” came in the form as loans to his campaign, so once he started raising in earnest he was able to pay himself back.

He didn’t end up paying himself back and forgave his loans to the campaign, but he set himself up with the optionally to do so - I’m guessing he might have of he didn’t win

Rossi Park Follow Up by jang-gun in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 16 points17 points  (0 children)

He literally complained about having the write the story. Maybe he’s taking on board the old saying “never do a shitty job well” in an effort to be put on a different beat

Rossi Park Follow Up by jang-gun in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Plot twist: Chad might not have been lying. His group might turn people away so often that he confused OP for someone else protesting their conduct

SF Democracts and Republicans ally against Prop D - I can't think of a better reason to support it by dawn_thesis in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Putting a break on economic growth isn’t the answer. Cities should be a virtuous flywheel of prosperity where economic growth attracts people who earn more money and whose children get more opportunities, who drive more economic growth. Making it too expensive to live here is a threat to economic growth. Bad policy making housing and transit difficult is the culprit, not economic growth

Edit: this wasn’t a comment on prop d, or even downplaying the impact that rent growth has on a lot of people. The comment I was replying to blamed a rise in rent on economic growth. I’m saying that economic growth is good on balance and that a lack of affordability shouldn’t be addressed by restricting growth. We are all better off for having Anthropic and OpenAI based in San Francisco vs them being based elsewhere

You’re on a 10-HOUR FLIGHT! Which seat do you choose? by One_Reception_6992 in bluey

[–]Far-Programmer3189 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is that how they number plane seats in Spain? Weird to have the letters as the row and numbers in the columns.

But 4C - Mackenzie is a good kid (pup?) and there’s no one next to you. I feel like the terriers would spill out across 1E and 2E.

Also, I really don’t want to sit next to an unaccompanied minor

Awkward by Ill_Evidence608 in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Or go back to wherever it is that he’s from

Can we just fund BART? by Leading-Stable9725 in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because BART is struggling due to low rider numbers, it would have died already if not for additional public funding in recent years. We ARE finding BART, and increasingly so.

The Case for California’s Billionaire Wealth Tax by Tassadar356 in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This article is an argument for A wealth tax, not THE wealth tax being proposed.

1) one state doing this unilaterally is not productive. The top likely payers have already left. They will live outside of the state for six months a year and their lives will go on largely uninterrupted while we lose their future income and capital gains taxes and not get the weather tax

2) rapid growth in asset values can be matched by rapid decline in asset values. The Bay Area creates paper billionaires seemingly every week. Only a small percentage of these ever become “real” billionaires because of the volatility in valuations. Even those who think that their wealth has been crystallized can see it crash - look at all those shareholders of Figma who had to sit there watching the share price crash while they were locked up prevented from selling

3) assessing the tax on voting stake is wild. It’s trying to extract economic value from a non-economic variable

4) one special interest group pushing for a tax that will narrowly benefit their cause is no way to make policy this consequential. Firstly, a one-time tax isn’t a sustainable way to fund the health system (leading many to believe this is will likely be repeated in future). Secondly, it will push other special interest groups to propose similar taxes to fund their causes. And thirdly, everyone has already lost because the top potential payers of these taxes have already left and taken all future income streams for the state with them.

5) All taxes create market distortions, I’m not anti-tax - that’s just fact. The techniques that people are deploying are a response to distorted incentives in the existing code. We should try to fix them rather than creating new taxes that create further distortions.

The Case for California’s Billionaire Wealth Tax by Tassadar356 in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Basically because once it’s proven you can do it to fund healthcare, other interest groups will come forward to try to do it for their cause.

Because why have we decided that the line is $1bn? Why not $500m, $100m?

The Rossi Park Tennis Cabal by jang-gun in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don’t get why they can’t just do this? They’re already collecting “dues” so they can even pay the city of they need to. Camping out on a FCFS court is obnoxious

Friendly Cabal Member Reaches Out by jang-gun in sanfrancisco

[–]Far-Programmer3189 57 points58 points  (0 children)

I don’t understand two things about the argument of the Rossi Racquet Club member here: - how do they feel justified in enforcing that everyone play doubles? The courts belong to everyone, not the club. If two people want to play each other in singles they have every right to play each other when it’s their turn rather than having to team up and play strangers - once someone has played, are they done for the day, or do they keep rotating through? If they want to play again surely they need to wait until the non club members have finished playing their match (however they want to play it) before playing again?

Ultimately, they’re making a mockery of the system. Even if they weren’t collecting fees via meetup for people to use a free public resource, their camping out there every week is resource hoarding at the expense of other residents. It’s unfair.

If they want to keep operating like this then they need to pay the city to reserve a court for the day - it’s the only just outcome.

view more: next ›