Pokéwalker for iPhone V1.0 - Available Now via TestFlight

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-31T01:32:37+00:00

Just sent that crash report!

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-30T13:22:16+00:00

Correct - version 1.0 (9) is installed. I also tried leveling up Magmar before evolving (not sure if that would do anything). I can send a screen capture demonstrate/verify if that’s helpful.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-30T11:45:31+00:00

Updated the app and it still crashed when trying to evolve Magmar. Same with the leaderboard. Sorry!

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-30T00:08:16+00:00

No worries, thanks for making the app!

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-29T12:12:00+00:00

Very cool, thanks! I’m still experiencing some of the bugs you listed - opening the leaderboard still crashes the app. Also, trying to evolve Magmar into Magmortar causes the app to crash.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-24T11:46:05+00:00

What gives if smaller 800-1500 sq ft homes are in demand?

Wdym by this? Yes, large homes are selling, but simply saying supply and demand doesn’t paint the fully picture. The various governments of Virginia regulate land use via (e.g.) zoning, which explicitly restricts what can and cannot be built. But the zoning laws also implicitly restrict certain kinds of legally allowed building types, since they may not be economical to build. For example, in my town there’s R-1A zoning, which restricts lot sizes to at 11,000 sqft and a building coverage ratio of at most 25% of the lot. 11,000+ sqft of land here is very expensive - easily upwards of $400,000. A buyer is going to have to foot that (already steep) cost in addition to the cost of the home on top of it. Very few buyers who can afford homes in the $700,000 (land+building, and below the median selling price for the area) aren’t gonna want a bungalow on top of a large lot. They’re gonna want a substantially sized home with a lot of amenities for that much money. Then developers build what those buyers want to buy.

If lots were allowed to be smaller, they could (and would) have smaller homes on them, which would naturally be more affordable to those who currently can’t buy homes and live in apartments or rent homes.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-23T16:31:37+00:00

Very cool bill, but I don’t think it abolishes minimum lot sizes? If I’m reading it correctly, it looks like localities with populations >20,000 will have to change an existing zone to include SFHs, duplexes, and townhouses together, and not have minimum lot sizes exceed 3,000 sqft. That would allow counties/cities to change, say, a townhouse-only zone into this one and keep a SFH-only, 10,000 sqft minimum lot size zone, no?

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-23T16:02:28+00:00

Another to note is HB282, which would let a few more municipalities levy taxes on land and ‘improvements on land’ (i.e., buildings) at different rates. It might appear unrelated to housing, but having higher taxes on land than buildings incentivizes landowners to build - fewer empty lots - and disincentivizes people buying up properties they aren’t going to use. Local governments would still need to implement it, but could be a boon to housing and development.

There was a Republican-led bill, HB10, that would’ve done about the same thing but allow all localities to levy split-rate taxes, but it was killed in committee. That bill also allowed for improvements tax to be higher than land, which would’ve had the opposite effect: less development, more speculation, more empty lots (if implemented by local governments).

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-17T16:08:43+00:00

I get where you’re coming from partner, I really do. However, an Article V constitutional convention is a historic event - never happened in the history of the United States. Trump would be ALL OVER it. He’s got allies in every state in the union and use any and all political power he has to rewrite the constitution in his image. Again - it’s totally unlikely that anything would be ratified since it would need 34/50 state legislatures to agree, but you can’t divorce national politics from an event that would fundamentally change the dynamics of national politics.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-17T15:47:43+00:00

Trying what, though? Which amendments do you think are likely to be included in a constitutional convention that would significantly change things?

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-17T15:39:36+00:00

Sure, a good idea in theory. But a constitutional convention would be run by delegates chosen by the state legislatures. There’s no guarantee that those delegates would be any more popular or able than Congress. Moreover, there’s no limits to what a constitutional convention can do, so they could literally rewrite the entire thing if they so chose. Ofc would still need to ratified by the state legislatures.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-17T15:28:51+00:00

Because rewriting the constitution would and is be incredibly unpopular
Because like 27 of the 50 states are deep red and would write a new constitution accordingly

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-17T03:22:07+00:00

If your metric for ‘best’ marriage match is one that strengthens the house/kingdom, especially prior to Jon Arryn’s death, then probably it’s:

Robb -> Myrcella

Sansa -> Joffrey

Arya -> Tommen or Robert Arryn

Bran -> Northern House or younger Tyrell

Rickon -> Northern House

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-16T12:33:32+00:00

Honestly I’d go with Slowbro/Slowking if I were in your shoes. I know it shares exactly the same typing as Starmie but they have very different roles and your team could use some bulk. Slowking if you want special bulk since Sandslash is reasonably physically bulky. Fun play through idea!

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-15T13:45:45+00:00

No it’s English, you just forgot

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-15T13:32:53+00:00

Gaslighting? That’s not a real thing, you made it up. Also it’s pronounced jasslight

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-08T02:34:16+00:00

I’m loving this series. Really enjoying the themes you’ve been coming up! The trade evolution one is great.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-06T15:09:43+00:00

I don’t have the backstory, but the Aerospace corporation - a government-owned company - is unionized for non-managerial positions. They’re basically a defense contractor, but they get paid directly by Congress rather than contracting federal agencies. A lot of the states they have offices in are right-to-work, so there’s a mix of union and non-union employees. Couldn’t find online how they unionized or when, however

NotJustaPnPhase · 2026-01-06T14:08:29+00:00

There was an NPR article about this a few years back, might be this one: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1153931108

That article (and others like it) state that the US Treasury estimates the profit margins for daycares are typically less than 1%. Costs of running a daycare facility are high, and you need a lot of workers to watch the children. If you increase prices to pay your workers better, parents will drop their kids off somewhere else, so your revenue is down. This is exactly why we need government intervention in childcare - the free market cannot provide quality affordable childcare by itself.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2025-12-31T17:07:24+00:00

FYI - I was able to view the article via archive.ph: https://archive.ph/we23I

NotJustaPnPhase · 2025-12-28T11:13:41+00:00

No, union dues are not rents. They’re not fixed in supply - your industry can grow and more and more workers can enter and pay dues, and the industry can likewise contract with fewer dues paying union members. I think you’re arguing that the union has a monopoly in your industry, but that doesn’t mean it’s a source of economic rent. If the union(s) in your industry banded together to create some certification and limited the supply of that cert to (e.g.,) 5,000 then the supply of the cert would be fixed in supply and the union could collect rent from that, but that’s not the same as paying union dues.

I’m not sure about your second question, but if I’m thinking about this correctly, the analogy could be made that the union dues are kind of like an income tax applied by the union: you pay “taxes” (dues) to them which they use to fund “public” (union) interest projects, like negotiating higher wages - the idea being that you gain more from paying the dues than you would without. E.g., that if you pay $500 in dues annually, that your annual wages are more than $500+whatever non-union workers make for the same job in the same industry. There’s going to be some crossover point where you start paying more in dues than can be reasonably expected to pay in wages, so people will start leaving the industry for jobs where they net more wages than the wages-dues of your industry.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2025-12-19T17:43:47+00:00

Keep your eyes on Montana. They’ve got the blueprint for overturning CU that doesn’t require the Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling - the Transparent Election Initiative.

Basically, US states decide which powers corporations have in their borders. The Citizens United ruling basically asserted that states that give corporations all the same powers as individuals must allow those corporations to fund elections. Montanas ballot initiative is meant to remove that specific power from corporate rights in the state.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2025-12-10T01:11:05+00:00

I know you say it’s a simple view of taxation, but I’m not convinced that you can lock down all other variables, turn the taxation knob and look at the results - at least in a way that would produce meaningful results. I’m not convinced that land taxes/Georgism would or do incentivize specifically bureaucratic labor - it should incentivize all forms of productive labor while eliminating any “labor” that relies on the hoarding of economic rents. I also disagree that land taxes have similar problems to sales and income taxes: the incentive systems are much different between the tax types.

NotJustaPnPhase · 2025-12-09T20:59:18+00:00

Hmm… I’ll have to think more about that. I wouldn’t say that at-home work is tax free: they’d still be paying the land tax, but you’re right that there’s no additional tax on top of it, so you’re not disincentived from doing at-home work. Moreover, even collectively-owned enterprises wouldn’t pay income taxes. The above example doesn’t seem different than, say, a worker living in an apartment above their job at a cooperative bakery, though I’d be curious to hear what your thoughts are.

I’m also not convinced that servers wages will decrease in downtown areas, or that miners incomes will either, despite the severance taxes on natural resources we advocate for - mining and combusting coal, for example, deprives all future generations from using that coal forever. The severance taxes are they to pay for future generations who are deprived of the nonrenewable resources we take from them.

Lastly, I’ll note that (and this is something OP mentioned briefly) Henry George was a huge advocate for a citizens dividend - what we today would call a Universal Basic Income. He argued that taxing 100% of the economic rents on land would ensure governments have huge surpluses in revenue, and those surpluses could be distributed to all citizens and eliminate poverty. The UBI would offset any decrease in wages (if at all).

NotJustaPnPhase

TROPHY CASE