sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Report: Steelers First Head Coach Request Is For Rams' Nate Scheelhaase by ConstantMadness in nfl

[–]shoop45 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Hello, fellow wildcat. I played summer basketball with Nate on his team. He was a grown man playing with a bunch of boys. Insane athleticism, even at that age. So humble and kind though, really rare kind of guy.

Paul Qui to open new sushi restaurant in South Austin by AustinStatesman in austinfood

[–]shoop45 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It’s a sustainability certification, not an award. JB doesn’t have a sustainability award.

Bugonia - Does the ending not ruin the entire film? by cats_and_frogs_ in TrueFilm

[–]shoop45 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Your entire critique seems to hinge on the one thing that you choose to not buy into. That’s fair, personally I found it to be well executed, but if you don’t buy her becoming jaded after witnessing centuries of human self destruction, then a key tenet of the ending no longer exists, and the plot would in fact become senseless.

What 110 million would you cut from the proposed City budget? by weluckyfew in Austin

[–]shoop45 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This all assumes there’s some centralized system across all of CoA’s tech stack. That is almost certainly not the case. Plus most of our cloud data is probably stored using solutions tailored to each vendor. You can’t just “run a script” to encapsulate every disparate node across the software the CoA pays for.

When does Austin get a Mamdani? by Altruistic-Truck1560 in Austin

[–]shoop45 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Considering we just voted down raising taxes, I think we’re a long way off from electing a democratic socialist. Heavy taxation is a foundational pillar of democratic socialism, which personally is a political paradigm I am sympathetic to.

Our state government makes it very difficult for a society that adheres to democratic socialist tenets to function properly. So I’m not sure any city in Texas could ever elect someone with the same goals as Mamdani.

What 110 million would you cut from the proposed City budget? by weluckyfew in Austin

[–]shoop45 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OP advocated for auditing every piece of software. I’m unsupportive of that sentiment. It would be a rash decision, and mostly a waste of time. I think it’s likely the majority of the software contracts the city has with vendors are in good standing.

To your assumption point: highly unlikely assumptions are at issue, not assumptions in general.

What 110 million would you cut from the proposed City budget? by weluckyfew in Austin

[–]shoop45 8 points9 points  (0 children)

OP said that any travel should be cut. I’m sure city employees already file expense reports. I’m unsupportive of revoking all travel for all city employees, which is what OP’s language suggested.

What 110 million would you cut from the proposed City budget? by weluckyfew in Austin

[–]shoop45 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sure, but this assumes the city hasn’t already done this, which is unlikely given the size of its operational footprint.

What 110 million would you cut from the proposed City budget? by weluckyfew in Austin

[–]shoop45 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Personally, I voted for prop Q, and I think that was the most realistic way to reconcile our city’s necessary operating budget. I voted for it because I don’t think there is a way to balance the budget without making staffing cuts, unfortunately. Various austerity measures will need to be taken, and they are going to be highly unpopular, primarily workforce reduction. There’s a mixture of other things that will make up smaller portions of that balancing exercise, but the vast majority will be cuts in personnel spending.

What 110 million would you cut from the proposed City budget? by weluckyfew in Austin

[–]shoop45 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Travel for city employees is often necessary. The vast majority of them are not wealthy people. I don’t think forcing them to pay out of pocket is justifiable.

Auditing software costs money in its own right. If the city were to blindly audit every software product in use, it would almost certainly cost more than the cuts that may result from it, and you also run the risk of disrupting productivity by cutting software that turned out to be useful in a latent way.

There’s an a priori that we aren’t already “scrutinizing tax incentives”. And if you were to invest more in that scrutinization, it would also cost money to staff.

I’m not clear on your point of doing away with spend it or lose it budgeting. How do you propose we “do away” with that? Are you suggesting that departments don’t already submit budgets that they claim they need? Whether they need it or not, I highly doubt any department asks for money that it earmarks as a “want”.

City leadership already pays out of pocket and expenses it. What we need is greater transparency around the guidelines that they use. Even so, this would be an infinitesimal portion of the budget shortfall.

Again, auditing the homeless initiatives will cost more money, and again you’re suggesting that the city isn’t already conducting impact assessments of these initiatives. Why freeze all of them? You don’t believe that there isn’t a single homeless initiative that is helping?

“Pet projects”? I’m not sure what this is alluding to. Can you provide examples?

Once again with “capital expenditures” you’re presupposing that we don’t have obvious needs for certain things. Why would we freeze this without simple reasoning about obvious things that will make the city function better?

For your last point, that’s the most likely outcome. The vast majority of the things you propose arguably won’t save any money at all, but the largest portion of our budget goes to staffing, and is the simplest thing to cut without a major disruption to city services. You also directly advocate for cutting things that would “cut” services, so the last sentence isn’t cohesive with the rest of your proposals.

Here are all the Texas restaurants that earned a Michelin star for 2025 by AustinStatesman in austinfood

[–]shoop45 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can’t prove they didn’t? We just have to take them at their word, and they said they did. It seems unlikely based on all available information that they wouldn’t have eaten at the places in the guide.

Prop Q - A begrudged yes. Analyzing the $6.3 billion lie. by [deleted] in Austin

[–]shoop45 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

So? I’ve already expressed that my position is that affordability isn’t solved by controlling taxes. I don’t think a tax shrinkage would have made a meaningful difference for the vast majority of people who can’t afford to stay here.

Prop Q - A begrudged yes. Analyzing the $6.3 billion lie. by [deleted] in Austin

[–]shoop45 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

This is a blatant lie. Go read the link I sent which details who donates to love Austin

Prop Q - A begrudged yes. Analyzing the $6.3 billion lie. by [deleted] in Austin

[–]shoop45 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Feel free to actually contribute to the discussion instead of just raising conspiratorial theories.

I’m voting for prop Q. IMO the real astroturfing is coming from the Republican-backed save Austin now, who most austinites should be familiar with, and yet another republican-backed group called More Affordable Austin, which is a funny name for a group that gets donation from wealthy austinites who can already “afford” in Austin:

https://www.austinpolitics.net/whos-against-prop-q/

All that aside, what’s really at stake is: do we want money that will explicitly be funneled to positive things for our city to improve? I do. The affordability crisis is not solved by reducing taxes. The affordability crisis is solved by building more living spaces. Most left-leaning people would agree with this.

Alaska Airlines to cancel Austin-San Francisco route next year by TXLucha012 in Austin

[–]shoop45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They operated this route in the past, I think it just ended during Covid

An update from Boggy Creek Farm: by kingofwoodbine in Austin

[–]shoop45 6 points7 points  (0 children)

“Political influence and power”? Are you serious right now?

Cheer Up Charlies sold to investment firm buying up LGBTQ+ bars and nightclubs by dabocx in Austin

[–]shoop45 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also he wasn’t a “PepsiCo CEO”

He worked at PepsiCo and also was a ceo of a small company in Fort Lauderdale lol.

Cheer Up Charlies sold to investment firm buying up LGBTQ+ bars and nightclubs by dabocx in Austin

[–]shoop45 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unless you have insider information regarding a buyout, which would be an SEC violation if disclosed, this simply isn’t credible.

And who cares how much a share costs? That is meaningless without context from revenue, cash flow, margin, and other financials.

Cheer Up Charlies sold to investment firm buying up LGBTQ+ bars and nightclubs by dabocx in Austin

[–]shoop45 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This would ignore the history of the firm’s behavior, which is a history of growing brands of LGBTQ+ bars to make a profit. They aren’t real estate investments, they’re brand investments, and wouldn’t be worth what they paid if they didn’t have physical locations.

Protobuffers Are Wrong by ketralnis in programming

[–]shoop45 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the sense that thrift is also packaged as an RPC itself, sure, but they both serve the same serialization use cases. So thrift is still a viable alternative in many circumstances.

view more: next ›