The blueprint should start with a recipe for building a better computer, and once you do that, well, it's humans starting fires and playing with the flames.

> Legal protection and structural advantages for landlord interests over tenant interests.

Rent control is not in the landlord's business. In Seattle, the other legislation against landlords is pushing them out of business.

> Pushing the tax burden for upkeeping society off people who own more shit than any of us ever will onto people who have to work for a living.

1% pay 40% of the federal income tax.

Google [percent of federal government spending spent on wealth redistribution] says: "A significant portion of U.S. federal spending, around 60-70%, goes to social insurance and safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Income Security, which function as wealth redistribution by supporting retirees, the needy, and vulnerable populations, though the exact "wealth redistribution" percentage varies by definition but centers on these large mandatory spending categories. In FY 2024, Social Security and Medicare alone were 36% of the budget, with Income Security adding another ~9-10%."

> Legal protection and structural advantages for employer interests over employee interests vis a vis wage theft, worker safety, worker injuries, etc.

The legal advantage again is for the employee. For example, wage theft is illegal and is aggressively prosecuted.

> Rent control is not in the landlord's business... Seattle... Landlords going out of business...

And you immediately demonstrate why having a conversation with you on this subject is pointless.

There's a million different dimensions in which the problem that I've pointed at manifests. But what you do is you cherry-pick one particular dimension of it in one particular municipality in one particular time period[1], claim that that dimension is (allegedly) biased in the other direction, and thus you reach the universal conclusion that clearly landlords are the real victims[2], and you can just sweep the entire issue off the table.

I don't have enough words to describe how incurious and chock-full-of-fallacies this kind of thinking is.

You already know everything that you feel you need to, and there's nothing more that needs to be said. It's like you have found the number 2, and conclude that therefore, most numbers are even primes.

---

[1] Actually, you don't do even that. You just vaguely wave your hands in its direction.

[2] Kind of weird that the market values their real estate to be worth twice what it was a decade ago if they are getting such a raw deal. I'm sure PE is snapping up rental properties because they are money-losing investments, too. After all, serious people who have done the math and are putting billions of dollars into this (and are reaping profits on their investments hand-over-fist) must all be too stupid to understand just how awful renting out property is.

> And you immediately demonstrate why having a conversation with you on this subject is pointless.

That's because my positions are correct.

BTW, rent control in 9 states is statewide, and is commonplace in cities.

Google [does seattle provide free lawyers for tenants?] for more examples.

For more,

In California, over 35 cities and counties have implemented long-term rent control ordinances for residential rental housing. In addition, since Jan. 1, 2020, the California Tenant Protection Act has extended rent caps and eviction restrictions to many properties not governed by local ordinances.

Google also reports:

Tens of thousands of NYC rent-stabilized apartments are vacant, with estimates varying from around 26,000 to over 60,000, often described as "warehoused," because strict rent caps (especially after 2019 laws) make costly renovations financially unviable for landlords, leading to units sitting empty rather than being rented or sold. While some vacancies are for legitimate repairs, many are held off-market as owners await the ability to renovate and raise rents, contributing to the city's housing shortage, say housing advocates and reports.

And yet, investors and landlords are scooping up every rental property they can, and are as a class, making mountains of money in those states.

It's wild that as a whole they are so advantaged that they are still net-in the green when they let properties sit empty and unused.

It's just as wild that you continue digging deeper. Reality in the big picture isn't compatible with your 'correct' viewpoint, so you keep drilling down to microdetails.

Did you read the part about 26,000-60,000 units left vacant because it was unprofitable to rent them out under the NYC rent control laws?

1. To make it clear what is your work, and what is building on someone else's.

2. If the paper turns out to be important, people will bother.

3. There's checking for cursory correctness, and there's forensic torture.

building on imaginary someone else? That's exactly the same as lying. Is a review not about verifying that the paper and even data is correct? I get reviewers can make mistakes, but this seems like defending intentional mistakes.

I mean, in college I have had to review papers, and so took peer review lectures, and nowhere in there was it ever stated that citations are not the reviewer's job. In fact, citation verification was one to the most important parts of the lectures, as in, how to find original sources (when authoring), and how to verify them (when reviewing).

When did peer review get redefined?

I'm not defending dishonesty, I'm saying that's what citations do when they are used by honest people.

> IMHO what should change is we stop putting "peer reviewed" articles on a pedestal.

Correct. Peer review is a minimal and necessary but not sufficient step.

I agree in principle, and I think this is what's happening mostly. But IMHO the public perception of a paper being peer reviewed as somehow "more trustworthy" is also kind of... bad.

I mean, being peer reviewed is a signal of a paper's quality, but in the hands of an expert in that domain it's not a very valuable signal, because they can just read the paper themselves, and figure out whether it's legit. So instead of having "experts" try to explain a paper and commenting on whether it's peer reviewed or not, I think the better practice is to have said expert say "I read the paper and it's legit", or "I read the paper and it's nonsense".

IMHO the reason they make note of whether it's peer reviewed is because they don't know enough to make the judgement themselves. And the fallback is to trust a couple anonymous reviewers attest to the quality of a paper! If you think of it that way, using this signal to vet the quality of a publication to the lay public isn't really a good idea.

Have you authored a lot of non-CS papers?

Could you provide a proof of concept paper for that sort of thing? Not a toy example, an actual example, derived from messy real-world data, in a non-trivial[1] field?

---

[1] Any field is non-trivial when you get deep enough into it.

I'd say my expectation is papers should be minimal in their effect, and compounding. If your project proves new facts, either they should be clearly enumerable (with as much specificity as possible), or your project/presentation/paper should be broken up to the point your findings ARE enumerable.

> Do other PR reviewers not do this?

No, because this is usually a waste of time, because CI enforces that the code and the tests can run at submission time. If your CI isn't doing it, you should put some work in to configure it.

If you regularly have to do this, your codebase should probably have more tests. If you don't trust the author, you should ask them to include test cases for whatever it is that you are concerned about.

It's not, but when you have 30 minutes to ship a story...

> Well I remember being taught about the Kent State massacre in school and how it was a stain on our country, and that we were learning about it because things like that need to be remembered, not forgotten.

School taught you the wrong lesson about it. ~Half the country (guess which half) supported it... And I've no doubt that they'd do so again.

What specifically is the wrong lesson that you've inferred school taught the original commenter about it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you agree that it was "a stain on our country" and that it needs to be remembered.

The wrong lesson is that while the teacher may think it's a stain, and you and I think it's a stain and how any civilized person would think it's a stain, the country doesn't think it's a stain.

What's important about it isn't that it happened, or what we think about it. What's important is how many people didn't think it was a mistake - and wouldn't when it happens again.

It reveals a major blindspot.

I don't think that's right. I've never seen anyone claim that it was no big deal and doesn't reflect negatively on the politics of the 1970s.

There were people who argued that the shooting was the students' fault, certainly. But the students knew at the time that they were antagonizing people, and felt that it was worth the risk, predicting (correctly: https://emersoncollegepolling.com/50-years-after-kent-state-...) that future generations would see why their cause was worth fighting for. The only lesson I can see to take away from that is that violence is not the last word, and you should (as students at the time did) keep protesting even if people get shot for it.

I suppose there's also the lesson that de-escalation is an important tactical skill. But that's not controversial at all. Many recent National Guard deployments have been extremely conflicted (I'm still mad about them!), but both guard members and protestors have done a solid job at not needlessly antagonizing each other.

Maybe these means should be employed in more moderation?

Certainly we wouldn't be better off if advertising were beamed 24/7 at full blast into your ears and eyes the second you step out into any public space.

About 5% of its current proliferation would be a nice target to aim for - maybe a maximum of 200 ads a day[1] - but if that still proves to be an issue, we could always go lower.

---

[1] With maybe five rising to the level of notice.

The timelines were compressed because instead of doing all the safety trials one after the other, they were all done concurrently.

The only people that puts at risk are the trial participants.