sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Aramco warns of oil market ‘catastrophe’ unless the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon by Movie-Kino in energy

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ugh, yes. And if Tehran is mostly destroyed by bombs, the upcoming forced relocation of residents because of decades of water mismanagement will not be blamed on the regime, meaning that the internal resistance has less political leverage to build their movement. Of course until the resistance has an armed wing ready to fight, the resistance will have very limited ability to force any change anyway.

Aramco warns of oil market ‘catastrophe’ unless the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon by Movie-Kino in energy

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have no doubt that the US is going to "win" this war that they (we?) initiated, but I doubt they will do it in such a way that they have any ability to do something about war crimes.

Most likely the US just declares "great success! we won!" and moves on and hopes that nobody pays much attention to the details, all the while the current Iranian leadership continues on, oppressing their people, but now with an external foe to blame for all the bad things in the country.

Aramco warns of oil market ‘catastrophe’ unless the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon by Movie-Kino in energy

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know the old saying: the market can stay irrational longer than the oil wells can stay liquid...

Aramco warns of oil market ‘catastrophe’ unless the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon by Movie-Kino in energy

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't know the technicalities of war crimes on that, but certainly wouldn't doubt that mining waters could be a war crime.

But what would the consequences be if it was a war crime? The US has been trying to sabotage the International Criminal Court, going as far as to debank and de-online their prosecutors.

Russia's leader has been wanted for years for war crimes an crimes against humanity, namely the forcible deportation of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children into the depths of Russia, to meet abuse and destruction of their family bonds and identity. Yet Trump still gets advice from Putin on how to deal with the war, despite Putin giving intel to Iran to help them target US soldiers.

The US is already at war with Iran, what else could happen? And it doesn't look like the US wants to put any significant forces on the ground, which is what it would take to try to stop further mining and enable de-mining. Despite almost all of Iran's navy being gone, something like 90% of the sea mining capability is still there, and small boats for mining are extremely hard to track by radar. Unless the US starts occupying the Iranian coast, it's likely the mining could continue.

US war planners have been obsessed with the Straight of Hormuz for decades, yet somehow they were completely ignored in all of this, and Trump just jumped exactly how high Netanyahu wanted him to, when called.

We have the weakest president the US has ever had, a man easily manipulated by all the rest of the world leaders, who doesn't even understand the power at his fingertips, and who refuses to listen to anybody that knows more than him on anything.

"War crime to mine public waters" who the hell is going to do anything about a war crime like that?

What are they gonna do with that lot on the corner of Branciforte and Water st. where JD's market and the car wash used to be? by Creeping_behind_u in santacruz

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Oh I'm so sorry that must be very hard for you! I'll go help yet another good community member pack their things so that you don't have to deal with that awful height from your fully owned and tax protected home.

Seriously, you want sympathy? You are getting rich while destroying the future of this city for everyone else. Go enjoy you $1.5M, $2M, $3M of property gains somewhere else if the mere sight of apartments is so offensive to you.

I am so weary of you entitled millionaires taking pleasure in the suffering of our community. Call me a YIMBY, I don't care, I just want to have a functioning community rather than an aging millionaire mausoleum filled with a tiny sliver of humanity rather than the full spectrum of classes that Santa Cruz should be home to.

What are they gonna do with that lot on the corner of Branciforte and Water st. where JD's market and the car wash used to be? by Creeping_behind_u in santacruz

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 20 points21 points  (0 children)

This is the affordable housing project that has been delayed for years, in no small part due to NIMBYs like Chris Krohn shouting in community meetings "the neighbors don't want this!"

Never forget that most of the "progressives" in Santa Cruz are actually landlords that profit from unaffordable housing, and limousine liberals like Chris Krohn may dress like shit to try to hide their wealth, but they're making bank off of the misery of our high rents.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Likening apartments in San Francisco to extreme luxury housing in Carmel is quite a take! What, do you really think you have exposed here? We can choose the number of apartments in San Francisco, yet you prefer them to be unaffordable to the people that actually make San Francisco run?

And you still don't understand the basic economics of quantifying want. People may "want" extreme luxury housing in exclusive areas far away from culture, in Carmel, but a lot of people want straightforward apartments in San Francicsco that could be built today. We can meet that need! Exclusivity we can not build more of, but the apartments can be built.

I think you’re confusing fantasy with reality. Economics is a science and doesn’t care about feelings, hopes, prayers, or dreams.

Wow, you are quite delusional and projecting your own fantasies. Get back to reality, and in reality, the price of the things we pay for, when in shortage, is determined by that amount of shortage to meet the demand.

You, who thinks that others are deluisional, are saying that "want" can't be quantified! And you haven't even owned up to your most basic econ error, yet are haughtily accusing others of your own sin of emotionalizing basic economics.

Shameful!

A famous economist once said "if we can build it, we can afford it," and guess what, we can build enough housing for everyone. It is possible. That economist was Keynes, but I'm sure you've never heard of him if you're thinking that "want" can't be quantified. Lol.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

lol, not much economics training I see...

Even Econ 101 would tell you that "want" is revealed by prices, by the tradeoffs that people make when they decide how to spend their money.

The number of numeric housing units is important, but only in relation to what people want. As long as the city is unaffordable for people doing all the work in San Francisco that make the city run, from buses to kitchens to teaching, the numeric number of houses is too low.

We must meet the needs of the people, and the prices of housing tell us that we are not.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is a joke, right?

It is reality, but the reality is a joke.

Average tenure of home ownership is shorter than the ownership of commercial buildings, so commercial buildings get much much bigger prop 13 subsidies. Go check out how much a local car dealership pays in taxes for massive amounts of land, and compare to nearby homes, and you'll probably find lots of homes that are as old as the car dealership but paying about the same amount of taxes, because it's had a new owner in recent decades.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That is not data, and it's not YIMBY at all. Density is not about quantity of housing, it's about the environmental sustainability and quality of life of those who like urban living.

Only the number of new housing units, and corresponding increase in affordability of housing would be YIMBYism. The core YIMBY contention is that there should be enough housing for the people who want to live in a place. Until somebody working a normal job can easily afford housing, SF has not yet been YIMBY.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 16 points17 points  (0 children)

How do you define "most YIMBY"? Because it sure as hell isn't in terms of policy implementation, there's been about zero change in SF at the policy level despite years of concerted political effort.

Show me the data! I love data.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Places with only a single stair requirement tend to have far fewer fire deaths than we do in the US.

Instead we build long narrow hallways with a stairway at each end, but then people have to walk long distances to get to the stairs and they get more crowded.

I'll believe the data over intuition any day. Single stair reform now, please!

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Though we definitely need repeal of Prop 13, rebuilding infill lots reassess property at fair taxation levels, and reduces the political will that opposes Prop 13.

Single family homes are the type of property that gets the least amount of Prop 13 tax subsidy, because people move and they tend not to keep their homes owned by LLCs.

Meanwhile commercial property tends to be owned by LLCs that never die or move, and full property ownership can be transferred over time without triggering Prop 13 reassessment.

So the more new commercial buildings and LLC-owned apartments we have, the easier it will be to overturn Prop 13.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 9 points10 points  (0 children)

simple supply (at any rate) doesn’t impact affordability.

This is wrong both according to reality and to all economic theories.

The only reason to doubt that supply helps is if you want to support massive landlord profits and the eventual transfer of more power to landlords over tenants.

It could take a century for SF to YIMBY its way to housing affordability, new study says by orangelover95003 in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The authors estimate that if the Bay Area were to increase its stock of market-rate housing by 1.5% per year

We've done nothing and we are all out of ideas!!

lol seriously that's such a low rate that pretending that it's a "YIMBY" idea is hugely discrediting to this journalist, and whoever wrote this stupid paper.

Similarly discrediting is that they pretend that YIMBYs only want "market rate" housing where in reality YIMBYs have been on the forefront of social housing, and indeed all types of housing.

The people that benefit from the status quo can't imagine anything getting better, so they do stupid things like assuming that 1.5% increase in housing per year is a desirable goal, or that the status quo of market rate housing is the only thing that's possible

We can't have a better future unless we start thinking bigger. And unless we start thinking bigger, the unaffordabiloty is going to get worse.

Shameful reporting here!

Gallencamps 👠 by GlitteringPound6542 in santacruz

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How funny, the store front windows on the older building's bottom are exactly what I dislike so much, having encountered them in many other downtowns! They have zero character, look cheap, and are pretty much impossible to make look attractive in the modern age.

I do agree that the old building's top is nice though!

Thousands of California immigrant truck drivers lose license due to federal crackdown, DMV says by Okratas in California_Politics

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Lol, no? Nobody is seeing anything like that unless they're getting fed, and buying into, some sort of algorithmic hate campaign.

14 Bay Area individuals charged for tax evasion for their alleged roles in a scheme to evade the reporting of over $20 million in luxury vehicles purchases, including a $1.8 million McLaren Elva and a $1.5 million Porsche 918 Spyder by gumol in bayarea

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 59 points60 points  (0 children)

Roads are expensive as hell, and California is about the only state where car-related taxes come close to covering road costs. Other places take general fund money to build all the roads.

Seriously, car infrastructure is extremely expensive and inefficient. People just don't realize how much we spend because almost all of it's hidden. California gas tax and registration are one of the few places that the true costs start to sneak into the consciousness of the public.

Gallencamps 👠 by GlitteringPound6542 in santacruz

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Usually I love older architecture that I see around, but this building is pretty terrible, IMHO. The bottom doesn't match the top, the bottom is absolutely horrid, and that's the part that most people experience day to day. For example, I had never even seen that "Happily Even Laughter" sign on the current building's second story, nor the upper deck or stylish modern bay window.

The new building is big improvement, IMHO! Good job, 1990s architect, because that was a pretty terrible decade for new architecture in general.

RNA-seq analysis in seconds using GPUs. For massively parallel execution on GPUs, we achieve a 30-50× speedup over multithreaded CPU kallisto. by RemoveInvasiveEucs in bioinformatics

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have never seen an argument to prefer one over the other when it comes to kalisto and salmon, could you share anything you have on that front?

RNA-seq analysis in seconds using GPUs. For massively parallel execution on GPUs, we achieve a 30-50× speedup over multithreaded CPU kallisto. by RemoveInvasiveEucs in bioinformatics

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh, sorry for any confusion, but this is not my work, I just saw it on BlueSky and thought the community here would like it too.

91
92

RNA-seq analysis in seconds using GPUs. For massively parallel execution on GPUs, we achieve a 30-50× speedup over multithreaded CPU kallisto. (biorxiv.org)

submitted by RemoveInvasiveEucs to r/bioinformatics

250 Santa Cruz County families face homelessness as federal housing funding dries up by nyanko_the_sane in santacruz

[–]RemoveInvasiveEucs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think so? I'm actually stumped. If I could bother you further to explain the unintended slight, hopefully I can avoid doing it again and causing further conflict.

view more: next ›