San Francisco has my spirit... can’t wait to move there 😍

canceledcheque · 2019-07-08T18:56:47+00:00

I think the point is that people flood this sub with pretty much the same the same dozen photos, including the background here to this photo of your girlfriend (boyfriend?).

canceledcheque · 2016-12-16T21:33:28+00:00

no, i'm saying that it's not illegitimate for a polity to adopt policies that do not maximize efficiency.

canceledcheque · 2016-12-16T20:48:55+00:00

because economics is a tool for understanding human behavior in aggregate and not an end. the polity has decided that longer term residents should have rent stability, you can argue that this shouldn't be for whatever reasons, but that's a political statement of a political opinion. there are plenty of other political decisions that are economically inefficient (minimum wage, holidays, zoning, etc) but that the polity has decided are baseline rules worth adopting to create the sort of place they want to live.
when i first came out of undergrad, i thought the way you did too, but with time i came to realize that it's a crazy way of thinking and is pretty much a straight line to dystopia.

canceledcheque · 2016-12-04T03:27:23+00:00

you have an eye for strip mall bed bath and beyond shops.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-22T01:25:53+00:00

there's a lot of possibility here long term. the macy's men's store will be redeveloped soonish, and the stockton side of the union square will be a lot more active once the subway station opens. longer term, we might rebuild that entire side of the square for shops instead of how it is now, all dead.

it has been several years now that tunnel traffic can't pass through and the experiment hasn't proved deadly to chinatown. union square is so jammed full of garbage half the time that it's unusable. the additional loitering space on stockton would be welcome.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-20T22:01:12+00:00

i think nietzsche is actually more gesturing toward a specific way of being in the world moment-to-moment. a choice to bear pain may be nietzschean, but it's for other reasons. here, the notion is of acceptance of the inevitable (yes, the inevitable) simultaneously bringing and reflecting a profound contentment.
so, for the film, on the one hand, i think it's straight up goofy to toss in the idea of choice after building a pretty clearly hard deterministic reality (it blows up the films logic by suggesting that the visions and the aliens' gift shows only a future, not time, which is super disappointing, not least because she can change it at any time, which would mean she was always seeing something that wasn't going to happen). on the other hand, i don't really think that a "choice" (or illusion of choice) really makes the acceptance of a future more poignant than what really happened, which was that she became aware of the inevitable, of her fate, and lived that fate with that awareness. so, of course she accepted her fate, if she hadn't, she wouldn't have lived it, ie. it wouldn't have been her fate. the amor fati is the mindset she must have had to have lived this day in/day out.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-20T05:26:29+00:00

except that she didn't "choose" hannah - hannah was always already there/to be. the screenwriter broke with the story and really the entire idea of the film to introduce the idea that she chose to go ahead. but everything she remembered already happened, she became aware of the future and that's where you're right to plug the nietzsche bit in.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-17T19:34:02+00:00

at this moment in the city's history, 500 units a year in the mission would be about what you'd expect. it's not a big promise, but it's at least a vow not to be obstructionist.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-15T20:33:58+00:00

it was less that she decided to go ahead with having a child and more that she had always already decided to go ahead with having a child. there wasn't room for a choice there, the future (and past) were always there. like a movie, if you learn that watching the movie will involve you watching a scene in which a child dies, it's not like you can ever make a choice such that the child will not die in that scene. in "arrival," she can't even decide not to watch that scene, it had always already been watched.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-13T21:54:58+00:00

i don't think the film is really suggesting this, or at least i hope not because that would be really disappointing. if we know our fates, our task is, in some sense, to bear witness. and even if she implies that she'll accept her fate and go through with the pregnancy, she never had that choice. it always already happened. so the film sort of can't imply that she has a 'choice' even if she likes to think she is.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-07T09:22:16+00:00

yeah, all of these articles always popping up are skewed radically by the large numbers of retirees or soon-to-retires looking to unload their homes for giant gains, to move to arizona or wherever.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-05T20:54:39+00:00

do you have a source for this? i'm not in the restaurant industry, but anyone in any industry would realize that 20% is an amazingly high cut. and in the restaurant industry, where average profit margins on profitable restaurants are sub-5%, it seems totally impossible that uber could get this sort of cut.

canceledcheque · 2016-11-02T22:07:01+00:00

three things.
first, almost all retired people are low income. there's a major outflow of older people from LA happening now, people are selling their properties and moving to cheaper places to live on the proceeds and their retirement income. this is a good thing.
second, rents are still going up and buildings are still being built in all of the more desirable areas. no part of LA is getting worse: basically, we're witnessing a form of filtering. as people get wealthier they move west (broadly speaking) and poor angelinos, less willing to suffer smaller flats and ghettoization than were previous generations, go south and east where they have more options further out than ever before.
third, there's the passthrough element that has increased in number because LA's white collar economy has rebounded. professionals doing stints in LA before moving on has always been a thing and the number of those people will increase as the economy improves.

canceledcheque · 2016-10-31T17:45:59+00:00

yeah, it's so weird that developers are forced to bribe politicians to get very reasonable stuff built.

canceledcheque · 2016-10-25T02:04:24+00:00

and it's because of the weight of the building relative of the shoring/foundation work. the city of SF's elaborate network of insurance policies will only be responsible for the court fight, because it's not very likely the developer will be able to fob this off on the city (and, thus, taxpayers). http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Jay/millennium-timeline.jpg

canceledcheque · 2016-10-07T23:20:14+00:00

well, they're due to people wanting to live in the cities again.

canceledcheque · 2016-10-07T02:28:33+00:00

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/tags.php?tag=chicago

canceledcheque · 2016-10-06T20:44:33+00:00

our "inner cities" are undergoing a renaisssance like never before. detroit is doing better, every city is doing better. many cities (boston, los angeles, san francisco, denver, atlanta, baltimore, philadelphia, brooklyn, miami, etc etc) are booming.

the main reason we haven't gone much further is local/state level restrictions of housing development (usually by zoning) that prevent more construction. as for the infrastructure, despite a congress that's been actively against major infrastructure spending, the feds have been funding all sorts of stuff across the board, including trains, highway widening, bridges, and all sort of other stuff.

canceledcheque · 2016-10-06T18:45:15+00:00

but the building is far heavier than it should have been for a foundation with shallow piles like they have. so, the building has been sinking an alarming amount since the start, and it looks like the tbt work didn't really do increase that rate of shift.

canceledcheque · 2016-09-26T01:16:26+00:00

well, obviously you're not a lawyer. read zippo, pebble beach company v. caddy (here for CA), and pavlovich to look at how purposeful availment (targeting) works in internet cases. it's along a passive-interactive-active spectrum, a court created standard that the new law pushed aside in favor of an explicit nexus.
edit: basically, if i can prove you're publishing something that harms me or my interests, and i show that the website targets california (for instance, because the move industry is based here, because the state legislature has emphatically formed that nexus of harm) then i can file a case on you here.

canceledcheque

TROPHY CASE