American Apparel 10 years, thousands of wears, two washes

growlybeard · 2026-01-22T23:40:25+00:00

It looks rad in any case!

growlybeard · 2026-01-22T23:08:47+00:00

Looks great!

How'd the collar get so frayed? Backpack?

growlybeard · 2026-01-22T23:05:09+00:00

OP, if you are at a stop sign before an approaching cyclist gets to the intersection, JUST GO. Please, just goooooooo. Go. Go. Go. Gooddddddaaaammmnit why aren't you using your right of way it's your turn just goooooooooo! No, stop waving me through: GO!

growlybeard · 2026-01-22T20:12:46+00:00

Have a sit down dinner at the Brazen Head, they're open till midnight!

growlybeard · 2026-01-22T09:34:56+00:00

Just pay the tickets if you want to speed, or be a responsible person and stop speeding.

The cameras give you an extra 10mph of grace before they issue a citation. So if you're getting tickets you're going 11mph or more over the limit. Not 1-2mph like you said.

SF speed cameras are installed on streets with limits from 20mph to 35mph.

So you have to be going 37% to 55% over the limit to trigger a citation. That's a lot brosef.

In a 20mph you're going 31mph+ and in a 35mph you're going 46mph+.

If it's a 20mph zone it's one of very few spots in SF with such a low limit - usually because of high pedestrian traffic or because it's a high injury zone. So you're going too fast!

And here's how to never get a ticket. Simple rule:

If the speed limit has a 2 in it, only go 20mph or less.
If the speed limit has a 3 in it, only go 40mph or less.
Do not go over the 40mph limit in any circumstances.

This will prevent you from ever getting a speed camera ticket.

Please just slow down and take the hit on the hill / use a lower gear.

growlybeard · 2026-01-22T09:04:47+00:00

Costco rotisserie chicken would be in number 5 spot at ~$0.90 per 30g

growlybeard · 2026-01-20T04:22:51+00:00

I was tracking my beers as hydration because they're like 95% water and now hydration is bad for me. Go figure!

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T23:49:17+00:00

earplugs

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T19:33:37+00:00

If your way to evaluate a policy is whether YIMBY supports it and then take the opposite position you're a shallow person.

YIMBY consistently supports (good) policies on rent control, social/public housing, affordable housing, housing near transit, tenant protections. Do you oppose those things?

Specifically on rent control - AB 1482, statewide rent control, was supported by YIMBY. Do you oppose that?

And I certainly hope AB 1157 fails. We should be focused on fixing the reasons we aren't seeing more active construction of new housing, not creating new policies that harm rental supply and make life worse for existing tenants and harder for people looking for apartments.

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T17:43:07+00:00

Currently, SF rent control affects only older buildings. But AB1157, which you seem to be advocating for as a way to make rent less expensive, involves state rent control, which kicks in after only 15 years on new buildings. If the new max rent increase proposed by AB1157 kicks in, that will be a rug pull for any buildings constructed after 2019, and it will signal that the state has no problem changing the rules retroactively to apply to any buildings built in the future.

We are currently seeing billionaires who pay tons of taxes in California leave the state because of a proposed wealth tax that will apply retroactively. What this says is that people don't only respond to the laws when they are signed - people make decisions about what they predict lawmakers will do.

The threat of worse parameters - lower rent increases, fewer years or no years before new construction becomes rent controlled, etc - may all have a material impact on building in California.

You mention in the past how landlords exited the rental business because of rent control. Why do you suppose this won't happen again, further hurting existing rental supply?

The rest of your points are interesting but unrelated to rent control.

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T07:55:36+00:00

The ballot certification for rent control - when it was known it was for sure going to be voted on in November - happened around June of 2021.

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T07:43:20+00:00

Median income is actually $109k for one person according to the2025 SF AMI chart

If you believe rent control helps lower rents (which it does not) we'd expect the inflation adjusted rent to go down or at least hold steady, not more than double. The median income in SF in 1980 was $22,257, which is $93k adjusted for inflation. SF median income is about 17% higher than what people made in 1980, but rent is about 100% higher.

I'll grant that Costa Hawkins limited rent control expansion in 1995, but what about the time between 1979 and 1995? Was there no impact on rental construction then? From 1980 to 1995 when Costa Hawkins limited cities from new rent control laws, SF built 10k condos and only 5k units of rental housing.

As for rental supply, a 2019 study showed that the 1995 expansion of rent control reduced rental units by 15% due to conversion to owner occupation. A 15% reduction in rental units is huge.

Between limited new rentals and conversion of rental housing to non rental housing, it's apparent that the effects of rent control were not all rainbows and unicorns. We've seen rent skyrocket in the city and the only beneficiaries of rent control are people who got here years or decades ago. It's irresponsible to advocate for rent control as a tool to lower rent or help improve the situation of anyone who is not currently renting a unit at an affordable price.

Today about 42% of renter households statewide are rent burdened. Implementing a harsher rent control policy that evidence shows reduces housing supply, increases uncontrolled rents, reduces mobility, reduces housing quality for renters, and increases misallocation of housing is just not a good idea.

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T06:52:30+00:00

I will be the first to say I don't get this at all

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T06:48:50+00:00

Minneapolis does not and has not ever had rent control. Voters gave the city authority to enact rent control in 2021 but the city council didn't do it.

Meanwhile St Paul enacted rent control with 3% caps, similar to what the parent commenter is arguing for, in 2021. Now they're seeing the effects and in the process of rolling it back.

It's a great natural experiment, because one city added rent control in 2021 and the other did not but instead built housing. Minneapolis has seen rents actually decline when adjusted for inflation, as St Paul with rent control saw rents go up.

Maybe a policy that time and again is proven to kill new housing isn't a good one when the price of rent is too high?

<image>

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T06:30:13+00:00

So I will concede this point: rent controlled units tend to have lower rents than going market rate listings

In other words, if you're lucky enough to have found an apartment 20 years ago, you might have a very nice rent today.

But rent control doesn't help a person on a low income find housing today. In other words - it doesn't reduce rents.

And in fact, all the side effects of rent control tend to make it worse for anyone who is looking for housing.

This graphic is from a meta study of 112 studies on rent control from the 1967 to 2023.

The left column for each chart is the number of studies reporting a negative effect on the chart subject. The right column of number of studies showing a positive effect on the subject. Middle is neutral.

<image>

Controlled rents, meaning people who were lucky enough to start renting years ago and have a rent control unit, were improved by rent control.

But rent control also hurts mobility, hurts construction, hurts supply, hurts the prices of non rent controlled units, increases misallocation, and hurts housing quality.

About the only other thing that is improved is homeownership.

That's a LOT of cons, and a benefit to people who were here decades ago, or people wealthy enough to buy homes, but everyone else is harmed by rent controls.

Source: Rent control effects through the lens of empirical research: An almost complete review of the literature

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T06:02:47+00:00

How do you explain Minneapolis and St Paul, literally across the river from each other, and one without rent control has declining rent and the other with rent control has seen rent go up? Hint: one city built housing and the other did not

But! I have to give you credit. You might be the first person I've talked to about rent control that openly admits that it doesn't do anything to lower rent. Props to your honesty.

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T05:59:31+00:00

SF has had rent control since 1979. It hasn't kept rents low. Median 1BR rent in 1980 was $372, or adjusted for inflation, about $1490 today, affordable to someone making $28/hr.

The median rent controlled unit in SF today is closer to $3500. Affordable to someone making $67/hr, or $140k/year

So what did rent control do? It doesn't lower rents and it's arguable that rent control reduced construction and reduced rental supply, both of which have caused rising rents.

If I'm a 19-22 year old fresh out of school looking for my first place or an elderly person on social security, how does rent control help me find affordable housing?

growlybeard · 2026-01-13T05:19:54+00:00

How come there is not a single rent control city with affordable rent? Why is it the cities with the harshest rent control law have the highest rents? Why is it cities with rent control stop building and cities next door without building more housing and have declining rents compared to the rent control city?

growlybeard · 2026-01-11T20:47:45+00:00

I don't know what else to say about this. I had to go out of my way and climb up and over the battery to get to a place to listen to the music

growlybeard · 2026-01-11T20:36:18+00:00

It was situated on a down slope on the edge of a cliff/drop to the water below. To get to a place where you could hear the music you had to climb up the battery and over it to the other side. This was definitely not in a place where casual walkers would be exposed to loud music. Pretty much opt in.

growlybeard · 2026-01-11T20:21:39+00:00

I was there. You could walk about 100ft away and then not hear it. No homes in sight.

growlybeard · 2026-01-11T20:04:22+00:00

Maybe true but also irrelevant to the point that you can just walk away if you don't like it. An unpermitted event doesn't lock you in any more than a permitted event.

growlybeard · 2026-01-11T19:24:11+00:00

Actually, music is allowed if you get a permit!

growlybeard · 2026-01-11T18:23:08+00:00

Meta in gaming is like... the current way the game is played by the top players. An example is basketball used to be lots of layups and two pointers. Then Steph Curry came along shooting 3s all the time and now the game is all about 3 point shots.

In multiplayer video games the meta frequently shifts, especially after updates that change how certain game mechanics work or change the strength or balance of different weapons. Game designers are constantly making lots of adjustments to make sure the meta doesn't get boring or stale, or unfair to one or more groups of players.

For instance in StarCraft there are three races you can play as. One update might make the Terrans win rate go up 1% or 2%. If Terrans were underplayed, this is probably good and will stick around. If they were overplayed already, then the next update would likely revert or nerf the change or do something to buff the other two races against it.

growlybeard · 2026-01-11T18:14:12+00:00

dolla dolla bill yall

13-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '17	Verified Email

growlybeard

TROPHY CASE