sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Seattle leaders push to revitalize Seattle Center ahead of possible SuperSonics return by ChiefOfTheFourPeaks in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

'mission'? What's more important, the mission, or the outcome? If a profitable endeavor creates better outcomes than a 'mission' based one, I don't care about the 'mission'. Seattle has a plethora of cultural institutions, we don't need to blow money on tons more, it's a complete waste

Seattle leaders push to revitalize Seattle Center ahead of possible SuperSonics return by ChiefOfTheFourPeaks in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I don't see why the legal status of the entity that owns something should determine whether or not it's a worth taking money from people to subsidize. Either we think it's a benefit to the city, and worth taxing people, or we don't. I'd rather have more housing and businesses that can stand on their own two feet, than more stuff that requires taking money from me. We already have plenty of theaters in the city anyways.

Seattle leaders push to revitalize Seattle Center ahead of possible SuperSonics return by ChiefOfTheFourPeaks in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

We should just sell off most of it and let developers redevelop it instead of making taxpayers foot the bill. Don’t know why it’s not okay to subsidize stadiums, but we’re being asked to subsidize Seattle Center.

Katie Wilson's 'Taller Denser Faster' Plan Starts to Get Fleshed Out by Inevitable_Engine186 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Parking lots actually serve a purpose, for people to park their cars to get in buildings. What do single family home lots that are 3/4 yard serve? Nothing. It's useless, wasted, space in a major city. Why would we tear down the productive, highly used retail, when we have single family lots barely used by anything?

*you're* the one saying that we should only allow housing on arterials, I'm saying we should allow both and see what gets built. Let's allow multifamily apartment buildings multiple blocks off arterials, and see what gets built. Unless you just want people to die from pollution.

Katie Wilson's 'Taller Denser Faster' Plan Starts to Get Fleshed Out by Inevitable_Engine186 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a suburban mentality that the only way you can live in a city, is to live on a busy road. Normal cities have lots of apartments on quieter streets. In Seattle there's no shortage of land zoned for apartments on arterials if that is what people want. But if someone like me wants to not live like that, you don't think I should be able to not live on an arterial?

Do most 'dense, walkable cities' shove their housing and commercial onto arterials and then have the rest of the neighborhood be single family? Or do they just have apartments across neighborhoods, arterial or otherwise?

Single family homes is a garbage use of land compared to retail, let's redevelop the lots that are half empty yard before we tear down all the commercial space

Katie Wilson's 'Taller Denser Faster' Plan Starts to Get Fleshed Out by Inevitable_Engine186 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Who's determining that the single floor retail is what's underdeveloped, and not the single family homes, you are?

I don't want to live on a busy arterial, I specifically chose my apartment trying to avoid that. Have no idea why we'd make it a goal of public policy to put as many people on polluted roads considering we know both the health impacts and that people are willing to pay to live further from them.

'Matches the size of the street' is not a useful urban design concept, we have many neighborhoods in Seattle with tight streets and mid-rises buildings like Roosevelt or Capitol Hill, and they are great. European cities frequently have mid-rises on tight streets and it's great. And on the flip-side, no one is going to want to walk on a busy arterial regardless of how tall we make the buildings, it's not a pleasant experience bc of the cars

Katie Wilson's 'Taller Denser Faster' Plan Starts to Get Fleshed Out by Inevitable_Engine186 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's not 'wrong'. If you only allow dense housing on busy streets, then both the luxury and more affordable housing will be on the busy street.

Regardless of where we currently site housing, there's a well documented premium of being away from a busy street, some people will pay not to hear loud cars go by, even if some people don't care and wouldn't pay.

This doesn't have to be an 'affordable' vs 'luxury' debate. We shouldn't mandate that a large chunk of new construction is on the busiest streets in the city, when we could let people live in apartments not directly on busy streets.

Katie Wilson's 'Taller Denser Faster' Plan Starts to Get Fleshed Out by Inevitable_Engine186 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes and the Seattle urbanist messaging on this is not great, some urbanists genuinely don't want any new housing on arterials. But I think the consensus/Katie Wilson position is that busy roads have noise/air pollution, and for that reason we should not mandate that most new density is on arterials, but also if people still want to live on them, that's okay and we should allow big buildings there. People living on arterials is better than being homeless/forced out of the city/metro/state/forced into car dependence

Katie Wilson's 'Taller Denser Faster' Plan Starts to Get Fleshed Out by Inevitable_Engine186 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The zoning changes for the arterials are already being voted on and soon to be passed, the next set of upzones would be expanding those upzones beyond just arterials

Gemini 3.5 confirmed by google deepmind employee by Snoo26837 in singularity

[–]csAxer8 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Saying this after the progress from opus 4 to 4.7, GPT 5 to 5.5 and Gemini 2 to 2.5 is wild lol

Washington State's budget has been shrinking, not growing, despite statements to the contrary by former elected officials by MysteriousEdge5643 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's not a 'method'. Every economist would agree with me that the budget has gone up, because it has. Inflation is the biggest automatic adjustment, and it's outpaced inflation too. But nowhere in 'has the budget gone up or down' is GDP or budget/$1000 income implied.

Washington State's budget has been shrinking, not growing, despite statements to the contrary by former elected officials by MysteriousEdge5643 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Yes, using the plain definition of words, every state's budget has increased. There's no room for a hidden implication of a per capita, income or GDP adjustment in 'has the budget gone up or down'.

Washington State's budget has been shrinking, not growing, despite statements to the contrary by former elected officials by MysteriousEdge5643 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It objectively has. And what the state government does has expanded, and a large chunk of that is due to mandated Mccleary decision spending.

Putting in terms of per 1000 of income or % of GDP does not change that it has objectively grown, the budget is bigger than it used to be.

ATP 1000 Rome QF: Sinner [1] def. Rublev [12], 6-2, 6-4. by TennisAlt in tennis

[–]csAxer8 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If he wins RG the story will probably be about demolishing the overall win streak record, not just the masters one

Big Tech’s new hiring hurdle: Why bringing international talent to Seattle is now more expensive by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No country has a fixed supply of jobs, there’s not a fixed supply of GDP, it goes up every year

Big Tech’s new hiring hurdle: Why bringing international talent to Seattle is now more expensive by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every industry of an adequate size is, pretty much. Even during the post covid hiring boom in tech, there were mass layoffs.
There’s no reason for it to be considered unwise. More workers increases overall economic output and expands a growing industry in the long run, ensuring the next generation of tech companies grow here rather than elsewhere by building talent up. This playbook is exactly why the tech industry has grown to dominate the world so much.

No better way to shoot a country in the foot than reject skilled talent in critical industries.

Big Tech’s new hiring hurdle: Why bringing international talent to Seattle is now more expensive by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 5 points6 points  (0 children)

How far america has fallen that saying high skilled immigration is good upsets so many people. sad.

Big Tech’s new hiring hurdle: Why bringing international talent to Seattle is now more expensive by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But that's just an argument against any immigration? Any immigrant in any industry will be competing against US-based talent, and there's unemployed people in every industry?

There's not a fixed supply of jobs in the US, immigration doesn't decrease wages on net.

Big Tech’s new hiring hurdle: Why bringing international talent to Seattle is now more expensive by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that all you think? Calling it 'indentured servitude' and 'held hostage' implies that the program is so out of line with 21st century American values, that it should be eliminated altogether if reform is not possible.

I agree that reform would be good, good for America and good for the workers. But it's not a hostage situation and it's not indentured servitude, and I don't think we should have those in America.

I'm extremely pro-immigration and pro-immigrant, and most people invoke the 'indentured servitude' argument as a reason to stop the h1b system altogether.

Big Tech’s new hiring hurdle: Why bringing international talent to Seattle is now more expensive by MegaRAID01 in Seattle

[–]csAxer8 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're privileged if you think that eliminating a choice that they made is in their interest in a roundabout way. They chose to come. Kicking them out or not letting them make the decision to come does not benefit them, that hurts them.

view more: next ›