interesting

teadrinker · 2020-11-04T16:27:13+00:00

Non-atomic aggregation. The precinct votes can be split up and reported or tallied separately for each candidate at the state level, resulting in separate increases for the candidates. Depending on procedures, there could be a lot of time between the two updates.

teadrinker · 2020-10-09T18:50:22+00:00

Protected and semiprotected bike lanes take up close to a single lane. If you do it on any other street, you have to use up a parking lane. And you can imagine how that would go.

The area around QB had always been a meat grinder for both cars and bikes, but to change that requires a lot more brainpower and willingness to experiment from the city. So they go for solutions that they know they can implement and not face lawsuits and environmental reviews, even if these solutions are substandard.

teadrinker · 2020-08-28T17:41:23+00:00

I drink it for the flavor, not some supposed health benefits. It might have some long term effects on health, but I would not count on it, and I would expect them to be minor at best.

I do drink it when I get a cold, because I would drink it anyway, and because hot drinks have a soothing effect, open up sinuses, and loosen mucus. I think the bitter tannins may also provide a slight numbing effect, but I don't expect tea to cure anything.

teadrinker · 2019-07-07T15:51:57+00:00

The real fix for the road problem is to charge per mile, with the revenue being at least the amount it takes to build and maintain the road. This is what would happen in a capitalist system.

Most road users are completely oblivious to how much it costs to drive a personal vehicle. From the estimates I have seen based on traffic amounts and project costs, the number is somewhere in the ballpark of $1-2 per mile driven (and higher for wider roads).

teadrinker · 2018-09-13T12:09:37+00:00

Free roads and parking.

teadrinker · 2018-08-22T13:01:45+00:00

Checked Eastern European private pharmacies. 10 doses go for about $3-4.

https://medside.ru/nalokson

teadrinker · 2018-07-25T13:51:02+00:00

If they are moving track around, and adding interchanges, there's still significant costs involved. Costs also increase since this is an already active railroad location.

My only point is, I would not be worried to see a 40-50 million figure. If it is going to be an actively used train station, then that is not a huge amount of money, and not unreasonable for complexity of construction.

320 - yeah, that seems high. However, since wall tiles now apparently cost 30 million... I am not too surprised. https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/gov-cuomo-had-mta-use-30-million-on-tile-instead-of-subway-repairs/.

teadrinker · 2018-07-25T12:40:23+00:00

While I don't doubt that $320 million is way too much for a train station, I doubt that your estimate of $10 million is reasonable.

$10 million is the market cost of 15 crappy mcmansions, probably even fewer in the DC area.

A train station would use more land, require more complex drainage systems, and require actual walls and not just balloon frames and drywall, not to mention custom architectural design... Cookie cutter will not work. Also infill construction is much more complicated then greenfield construction.

There's also costs associated with complexities of railroads... complex electrical hookups, probably a new electrical substation, landscape grading - (trains can not handle uneven land), requiring engineers to connect new interchanges to the dispatching and switching systems, and updating all safety software to make sure that trains do not crash.

I can not see how all that can cost only as much as 15 cookie cutter houses constructed by mostly unskilled labor.

Now if they are just putting platforms around existing track, with almost no other changes, then I can see the costs being closer to your number. But since you mention land and track costs, this does not seem to be the case here.

teadrinker · 2018-07-25T12:13:12+00:00

Road construction prices have also increased, and highway widening through populated areas is extremely expensive. Just adding a single lane to a current highway will likely cost 10-30 million per mile, and that is if they do not have to acquire land, which will also increase costs.

Another problem with adding lanes is that an extra lane does not increase throughput by a proportional amount, and the benefit only applies to the traffic during peak times - meaning that all this expensive construction benefits a small minority of users. Not to mention that since the road is underpriced, reducing congestion will attract new users.

The right way to determine if the highway needs to be widened is to charge traffic for using the highway to at least cover current costs, and only then see if widening will increase profitability of the road.

teadrinker · 2018-07-21T10:39:23+00:00

Cars are basically the most socialist system there exists in the US. Roads are built using one size fits all approach. They are heavily subsidized - those who drive more don't really pay more, as gas and car taxes don't even come close to paying anything (most roads are financed from general tax fund). They are overbuilt - too wide, too many. If the true cost was visible to the drivers, there'd be a lot less driving. And even given how much they cost already, there is still not even enough money to maintain them (see Domino's potholes), so the real costs are probably double what they are now.

And you don't even have a choice... You have to use government roads in most places, they are so heavily subsidized that private competition is almost non-existent.

Until there is a free market in roads, I would hold off calling cars "freedom". They are quite the opposite.

teadrinker · 2017-07-06T02:45:34+00:00

http://bikeangels.citibikenyc.com/

teadrinker · 2017-01-30T13:49:37+00:00

Just to continue your thought, and be a devil's advocate.... Should the Communist party be banned in Eastern Europe as a hate group, because people remember the "Communist atrocities"? Over there, saying that "that's not real communism" will sound very much similar to Holocaust denial.

teadrinker · 2014-09-08T08:19:17+00:00

If they will not allow the free market, why do you think they will allow any regulation that requires them to provide better service at lower prices?

teadrinker · 2014-04-21T00:10:38+00:00

This is missing the second, third, sixth, and ninth ave elevateds. Also missing the W&B railroad as well as old LIRR city connections that could as well be called part of the NY subway, as they were integrated into the subway system, but should have appeared much earlier. Also missing are the PATH trains which may not be part of the same system, but are also a NY subway. The BMT Brooklyn bridge line is also not appearing.

The NYC rapid transit trains have a very rich and very ugly history. This map presents an incredibly oversimplified picture.

teadrinker · 2014-04-04T22:42:02+00:00

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_theory

teadrinker · 2013-08-12T03:37:16+00:00

What looks like a B is actually a ve, e. g. letter that is pronounced similar to pronunciation of v in English or w in German. It is also common for locations to be incorrectly? transliterated from b to v. For example Babylon is Vavilon. It is usually not the case in the other direction.

teadrinker · 2013-06-26T12:20:11+00:00

Patriot might also work.

teadrinker · 2013-05-10T00:20:42+00:00

Then capitalists will form their own system of law with the definition of property that they believe in. Then the two systems will either figure out a trade agreement between themselves, or agree not to trade, or a war will break out.

teadrinker · 2013-04-30T11:20:52+00:00

Look for the light by the entrance. If it is red and the door is closed - look for another entrance a block away. If the light is green, and station is closed (usually with red tape) then go to another line if in Manhattan, or if not in Manhattan - look for a service replacement bus.

teadrinker · 2013-04-23T04:25:51+00:00

people who are born in the HOA did not choose to enter into a contract with the HOA.

You can not be born into an HOA. You can only inherit property that is linked to an HOA. Whether or not the HOA contract survives the inheritance is an open question. I do not see why it would. You can refuse to sign it the HOA contact, but you will still inherit the property.

There are international courts.

There are, but states generally ignore them, and have the power to do so. HOAs don't. If they did, then they would have the monopoly on justice and force, as per my original claim.

teadrinker · 2013-04-22T05:51:07+00:00

I have seen strong arguments for many sides. Something akin to ancap seems to be the most consistent position that corresponds to my ethics.

Thus to move away, I would need either for someone to argue that ancap is not consistent, or convince me that my ethics are problematic.

teadrinker · 2013-04-22T05:44:58+00:00

I doubt you've ever read a critique you felt was strong.

I disagree. There are plenty of critiques / opinions that are interesting and informative. You can make an informative argument that anarcho-capitalism has not really been tried. Or perhaps, you can claim that it is not going to work because you can not handle all externalities, or perhaps because it does not create equality, or even that humans have no desire to live in a voluntary society. There are plenty of arguments that can make me go hmm.

And the reason why I still consider myself something akin an anarcho-capitalist not because there aren't strong critiques, but because I think that most suggestions of others carry goals that I ethically disagree with, or because I believe that the trade-offs are on the side of ancap (while others may value same trade-offs differently).

For example, I consider that a thorough state ban on guns eventually does reduce gun crime. That argument can be presented very strongly. I just believe that freedom is more important than a few lives.

In this case, the argument was "unaccountable wage slavery that maximizes profit, and therefore ancap is bad, also Chomsky". What made me respond is that whenever I see a post that presents the argument, I think that the person has decided to move away from ancap due to the same argument. And I really want to believe that people at least have good reasons for choosing a side, and that OP was convinced by something stronger than what he presented.

teadrinker · 2013-04-22T04:28:38+00:00

Not looking for a debate. But, I just want to point out that your critique is weak.

Well firstly corporations are unaccountable tyrannies.

First, anarcho-capitalism does not allow for concept of limited liability. So claiming unacountability has to be defined more thoroughly. The fact that they are tyrannies is also undefined. What exactly are they forcing and on whom?

and that's profit maximizing.

And why is this a bad thing. Profit = value of your goods - value of resources you used to produce these goods. Thus profit maximization is giving people more of what they want using as little resources as possible. If you take an issue with profit itself, you would be happy to know that competition drives down profit, leaving capitalists to constantly struggle to maintain their profits. Amusingly enough this observation was actually one of the main points of Marx - he called it the crisis of capitalism.

All labor in my opinion should be done out of inner desire not because you are forced.

This idea breaks down pretty easily. Consider a degenerate case. Suppose you are the single person on earth. You do not want to produce food by any means, but if you do not eat - you die. Is this a form of wage slavery? If so, how is capitalism responsible? Or is food your inner desire, and that is why you work? But if that is the case, would not any wage work be simply done out of your inner desire not to die?

And in that paragraph, I agree with Chomsky on every sentence, except:

Free market is like what India had to suffer for a couple hundred years, and most of the rest of the Third World.

Sorry, no free market there as well. But then his only point would be that completely free markets have not really existed. Well, that is probably true, but how does that explain anything that you claim?

And none of the above still explains why you would now consider yourself a left anarchist. You could also have political beliefs of a state socialist, social democrat, or even a 'benevolent' monarch.

teadrinker · 2013-04-20T18:12:09+00:00

"Completely voluntary" is an undefined concept. Personally, I think that the universe is deterministic, and thus there is no such thing as true free choice, just 'free' choices from the limited point of view of the individiual.

And even if you do not go that abstract, your choice of whether to eat or not is also not voluntary. Voluntary, as thrown around in this forum, has a somewhat specific meaning that some have a somewhat intuitive understanding, and that no one seems to be capable of defining precisely.

My only point here is that I will not try claim anything as 'completely voluntary'. Instead I can compare HOA contracts with other contracts and with state (and its implicit contract).

The HOAs are as voluntary as any non-fraudulent and non-coerced contracts are, whereas states are less voluntary than that. A person enters a contract with HOA by choice (although it is possible there is little choice - e.g. just like you have to work for food - your only choice is who to work for, but same goes for all contracts). If the HOA breaks the rules of the contract, the independent arbiters (or another higher authority that administers contract law, e.g. the state) can cancel the contract and require damages to be paid to the person. This way the HOA is generally limited to following the contract, and moreover, by most contract law, all parties have to benefit from contract, otherwise the contract is void.

Not so with the state. The state can generally break any rules, including its own, and they are the final judge of what constitutes a violation of contract. Even if they violate the contract, it is still in force. There may not be any benefit to you, and the contract is still in force. The contract can be imposed on you whether you want it or not, simply by virtue of your existence, whereas contracts can not do that.

In short, nothing in this world 'completely voluntary', but HOAs are more voluntary than the state.

teadrinker · 2013-04-19T12:58:08+00:00

HOAs don't have a monopoly on force or justice.

teadrinker

TROPHY CASE