Freedom Isn't Free: What would it take to set software free? (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://logicmag.io/failure/freedom-isnt-free/ <comment><USER2> > This is why the struggle to set information free is not just a technical > matter—it has to involve a broader political struggle. The challenges faced > by the original free software movement are merely the tip of the iceberg. If > you take the core tenets of free software to their logical conclusion, you > end up with a desire to reverse all kinds of commodification by transforming > property rights in their entirety.

The whole idea of information as a property is unnatural. Copying and sharing the information is how humans and other creatures communicate, learn, share the knowedge, ask for help, warn each other, organize.

Imagine that you broadcasted some information to a public... but you still _own_ it. You can choose what everybody can and cannot do with _your_ information. You can even shutdown it globally. Even if somebody created an exact copy of _your_ information it is still "belongs" to you because you created it first.

This is a current reality. It is surreal and absurd that keeps generating more absurd every day. This is possible because there are might-makes-copyright laws in place.

Government is incentivised to have _suble_ censorship in place. Info-merchants want to create an artificial deficit and exclusivity of their "goods" using government repressive mechanisms.

There is no easy way out of it.</comment>


The ELF Object File Format: Introduction (1995) - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/1059 <comment><USER2> Anyone interested in this would also like Corakmi's excellent ELF101 diagram: [https://code.google.com/p/corkami/wiki/ELF101](https://code.google.com/p/corkami/wiki/ELF101)</comment>


Cat Parasite may affect our Psychology (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=2288095&page=1

<comment><USER2> Article headline is ridiculously overstated. How about: "Cat Parasite Has Some Odd Psychological Effects In People Who Are Infected By It, And So Probably Had Some Minor Influence On Cultural Evolution, Which Isn't Really All That Surprising, If You Think About It".

</comment><comment><USER3> Ugh. I wish this myth would go away. I've encountered so many people that have heard of this and have no idea how credible it is.

<comment><USER4> If you have no idea, why do you call it a myth? Sounds as if you have the idea that it is only a myth.

<comment><USER5> He meant that the 'people that have heard this' have no idea. I'm not sure whether his sentence can be properly interpreted as such, but even if it's grammatically dubious, the intention is clear (to me). He probably knows that the effect is vastly overstated in popular accounts, as other commenters have pointed out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the labeling of it as a cat parasite is interesting but misses the mark a bit. By messing with rat brains it helps feed cats. From the cat's perspective, it can sound more like a symbiotic relationship.

</comment><comment><USER7> I need independent verification before I can believe such an improbable study.

<comment><USER8> <http://edge.org/3rd_culture/sapolsky09/sapolsky09_index.html>

An interesting video interview with Robert Sapolsky on Toxo

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> More on that in this episode of the wonderful radiolab:

<http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/09/25>

</comment><comment><USER10> I knew it. I'm getting rid of that little beast right now!

</comment><comment><USER11> duplicate

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=789517>

</comment><comment><USER12> The title of the article (not this post) is outrageous! "Cat Parasite Affects _Everything_ We Feel and Do"

Even the content of the article itself disagrees with the title:

 _"He's not suggesting that it's a big player in cultural evolution. Lots of other things are more powerful, ranging from geography to weather to the availability of natural resources."_

And that's the "popular account". Consider what the actual research paper probably said. Reminds me of this comic:

[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/2009/05...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/files/2009/05/phd051809s.gif)

Side comment: This is a bit of old news (2006).

<comment><USER2> Or this comic:

[http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623](http://www.smbc- comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can I pay blog contributors to link my startup or post my content? - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN :)<p>I am working on a customer service software (http://helprace.com) and we desperately need more exposure. I am looking for a freelancer who is a blog author or contributor that can give our link in a publication for a fee. I don't think quality authors will be on a place like fiverr. Where can I go? ODesk? Anyone have any luck with this? <comment><USER2> Of course you _can_ pay them.

You competitors probably know about this page though: [https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93713?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93713?hl=en)

If you're doing this _just_ for SEO, be careful - and if you're _not_ doing it for SEO, make sure that's obvious if anyone ever reports you to Google.

<comment><AUTHOR> Isn't PR in essence paying for links? Something that a freelancer or agency would do. Correct me if I'm wrong</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are Domain Names Worth Anything Anymore? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> They have good value for personal email and projects for personal reasons as well as in situations where a link is not clicked.

Personal Reasons: Gmail starts sucking? Change email hosts, and all is mostly well with little to no interruption to your email service. Also, they can be good for personal branding.

Professional Reasons: A billboard, an ad, a business card. It looks foolish when a company is @gmail.com, for example. There are security reasons as well.

I use google apps for my personal email. If Google were to drop IMAP support or enforce terms of service that were unacceptable, I would have the option of easily pointing my MX records to another email host. If I was on @gmail.com, I would have a difficult time switching. For me, <$10/yr is more than worth it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes. They are still useful for SEO.

rentacar.com will get a free ranking boost on 'rent cars' that 'shertz.com' will not.

<comment><USER4> Well, that was the case until the past few weeks.

[http://www.seomoz.org/blog/are-exact-match-domains-in- declin...](http://www.seomoz.org/blog/are-exact-match-domains-in-decline)

[http://searchengineland.com/low-quality-exact-match- domains-...](http://searchengineland.com/low-quality-exact-match-domains-are- googles-next-target-134889)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since you can google from your addressbar in the browser I see normal users only use Google. Instead of typing www.example.com they type 'example website' and then reach it through Google (or Bing depending on their browser).

I think it's still of value to have a good domain name, in the end there will be a big subset of users who will use it to reach your website. If you're running a webshop on the domain this could be damaging if they land on one of you competitors and get the product they want with them.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yes. Domains are worth hundreds, or in some cases thousands, based on SEO. Having the right title can drive traffic to your site. They can increase an existing revenue stream as a result.

Unfortunately, there are still people holding onto things they bought 15 years ago, squatting them because they think they're worth millions. (Screw you, Barry.)

</comment><comment><USER7> I really don't think they're worth what some think or what they used to be as it's getting kinda common to see other TLD's as a company's main domain.

E.g. I can't get the .com or .co.uk I want but I don't mind much as I _can_ get the .me or .us that I want.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wonder how many people were upset with the whole .co TLD. There must be a heap of people who either paid lots of money to buy off domain squatters to get their desired .com / or they chose a less desirable .com address...

</comment><comment><USER9> If you mean are they worth anything to sell in a domain market place? Yes, but they're only worth what someone is willing to pay. I know people that have a domain they think is worth thousands or millions (they're not) and won't even entertain sensible offers. They've held these domains since the 90's and are waiting for their big pay day that will likely never come because no amount will ever be enough.

Meanwhile, I know other people selling many many domains for a couple of hundred per domain who have made hundreds of thousands in profit.

So yes... domains are worth anything, but the value is generally determined by the buyer, and big domain sales like those that occurred in the early 2000's are becoming rarer.

</comment><comment><USER10> Depends. For whom?

* Employed individuals, probably not.

* Self employed individuals, yep.

* Businesses, yes but it's mostly subjective, interpretational, perceived importance.

And remember, there are always exceptions to every rule. :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Are you talking about value to your business or value in terms of reselling domains?

<comment><AUTHOR> Doesn't one drive the other?

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> or in fact, are names themselves worth anything?

<comment><USER12> I think names are always worth _something_. How much they are worth depends on a variety of things.

Names frame a discussion of a product or service. It's the difference between calling something a) a cancer stick b) a cigarette or c ) a certain genus of plant, rolled into a cylinder so that it can be ignited from a chemically powered heat source.

In regards to domain names, domain names are inexpensive because people have realized that humans imagination is so great that we don't need productDescriptor.com anymore. We can use domain hacks, or come up with a different name. Often not having pizza.com available to us prompts better discussion of what our service truly offers, and results in a better product.

If domain names were worthless, than I'd direct everyone to simply type 192.168.1.1 (obviously local subnet) in their web-browsers to reach my site.

<comment><AUTHOR> That ip example you took is an extreme case argument format. Thats the one used for example to prove that poker is a game of skill or chance where ppl say it is not a game of chance since you can play to lose.

But point on names well taken.

<comment><USER12> Ah, sorry. I've taken a logic class, so I should really stop making spurious arguments like that. We have seen the enemy and he is us and all of that I guess.

I'll admit to collecting domain names simply because they sound cool and I worry other people will snatch them up.

<comment><USER13> +1 to being a (minor) collector.

Have a few with vague ideas behind them that might never come to fruition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Good question. I host stuff on free blogs like Tumblr these days. I am not sure if a full-blown domain name is as valuable to me as it was in the past.</comment>


California's housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/business/economy/housing-crisis-conor-dougherty-golden-gates.html <comment><USER2> Getting involved with a local YIMBY group is pretty easy, fun, and one of the best things you can do on several fronts:

* It's good for the economy, as "legitster" points out.

* It's good for the environment if people can drive less (or even walk or bike!) because they live closer to things.

* It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might like to move to a more productive place for a better job.

It's much easier to make a difference locally: in many places it's not hard to get to know your city councilors, or state reps/senators. One of my prouder YIMBY moments was turning out 5 people on a weekday morning to speak to our state rep, who ended up voting in favor of HB 2001, which legalizes up to 4-plexes throughout most Oregon cities.

<comment><USER3> >It's good for the people "on the margins", those struggling to pay rent, or those at risk of homelessness, or those who might like to move to a more productive place for a better job.

Please cite at lease one example in which this has ever been the case. I do understand the theory behind your argument here, and I assume you are familiar with (leftist) counter-arguments, so this is not an attempt to open a debate. Rather, I want you to be right but until I see some solid evidence I am unconvinced.

>One of my prouder YIMBY moments was turning out 5 people on a weekday morning to speak to our state rep, who ended up voting in favor of HB 2001, which legalizes up to 4-plexes throughout most Oregon cities.

This is a great example of how it seems to me that YIMBYs are anti-NIMBY in the way Democrats are anti-Republican. Time and time again, it appears neither groups are actually doing any thing 'good for the people "on the margins. Clearly, this policy benefits landlords more than anybody and the implication is that this is besides the fact of lowering rent prices. Fine. But it is not insignificant that all of these efforts primarily promote the perpetuation of rent-seeking.

I watched from the front row as investors bought up Portland. It has been about 6 years since it entered full-swing and rent prices are higher than ever before. This is not good for people "on the margins". In fact, most of those people were not even on the margins before the investors came in. I am one of them. I should know.

Of course, history is littered with cases of YIMBY theory failing urban housing markets, so please show me an example of where your theories have actually succeeded.

<comment><USER2> I think that if you're going to argue that supply and demand are not real for housing, you'd need to supply some good evidence of your own.

There are a lot of ways to build more supply:

[https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build- your-...](https://www.sightline.org/2017/09/21/yes-you-can-build-your-way-to- affordable-housing/)

I find the 'Montreal' example the most compelling in that it's fairly "human scale", but tastes vary.

<comment><USER4> Rental housing has price floor that distorts the market. Once a property diverges from the requirements of housing subsidy programs, it usually gets abandoned.

In most places new supply is high end and is making more housing available for people who don't lack access.

<comment><USER2> > In most places new supply is high end and is making more housing available > for people who don't lack access.

In most places, new cars are more expensive than used ones, but if you stopped providing new cars, the price of the used ones would shoot up as everyone started competing for a dwindling supply of cars.

Same goes for housing.

Also, it's a longer term process with housing, but 'filtering' is a real thing: [https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2016/05/25/housing- does-f...](https://oregoneconomicanalysis.com/2016/05/25/housing-does-filter/)

<comment><USER5> >In most places, new cars are more expensive than used ones, but if you stopped providing new cars, the price of the used ones would shoot up as everyone started competing for a dwindling supply of cars

An unspoken consequence of cash for clunkers. Practically overnight 100k miles was considered "low mileage", which was ridiculous before people started needlessly trashing perfectly good used cars.

<comment><USER6> Eh, I've heard that before as well but I don't know if it's true. By the time the program ended in 2009, cash for clunkers had taken ~700k cars off the market. The same year, about 35 million used cars were sold in the US[1]. Cash for clunkers was a rounding error.

[1] Had a hard time finding statistics for 2009, but it's in here: [https://www.niada.com/PDFs/Publications/2010IndustryReport.p...](https://www.niada.com/PDFs/Publications/2010IndustryReport.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is a study that came out this year that I have been obsessed with: If zoning laws in San Francisco and New York City (just two places!) were frozen in place in 1964, the average American income today would be on average $3700 higher.

[https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388?fbc...](https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388?fbclid=IwAR2CVxKv_dajgwLfLZ5XnKVnx02o1ceYRHIGZ-8X2Ka7Cu6I-LpXEuC5FdQ)

<comment><USER8> Super interesting study and to further clarify:

"Our point is that a first-order effect of more housing in Silicon Valley is to raise income and welfare of all US workers."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I completely agree with the sentiment to build more, much more housing. But, in order to make that happen, we also need to:

\- get rid of or modify zoning laws (at least in places where growth will happen)

\- reduce regulations on builders

\- ensure that there are plenty of builders for health competition (so that consumers don't get ripped off)

\- provide protections for builders from Sue happy NIMBYs (some kind of legal protection that prevents builders from being sued and penalizes NIMBYs that try to stand in their way).

The benefits of building more are so numerous:

\- every house that gets built reduces costs for everyone else as well, as the stress of under supply lessens

\- it's easier for people to get to work and find work

\- easier for companies to higher people

\- more jobs getting created, not just from people able to get to work but new jobs getting created from all that construction

\- It'll help the environment immensly! Everyday, I see the 580 - 5 lane highway clogged up with cars crawling by at 10mpg, probably getting very low MPG over a very long distance (this is where most of the CO2 pollution is coming from, at least in the US!)

\- over the long term even people with houses already will pay lower property taxes (decreasing values reduce prop taxes)

\- as the number of average miles driven per commute comes down, there will be less and less traffic.

<comment><USER10> Another beneficial change would be repealing proposition 13. Because proposition 13 essentially bans property tax increases for property owners, it creates a perverse incentive to drive property values as high as possible with restrictive zoning. Without proposition 13, property taxes would rise along with the land's economic value, creating an additional incentive for property owners to let the market naturally shift land use to higher-density housing.

<comment><USER11> There's good reasons to keep part of it. I figure: You get to have the Prop 13 effect on one property - notionally, your home, but since it's difficult / gameable to determine which place is "your home", fuggedaboutit, and just say "pick one".

Because yeah, it'd suck to lose your home that you're supposed to own because your neighborhood got pricey.

<comment><USER12> How does one "lose their home" if the value (to resell to others) goes down, but they aren't moving & still living there?

<comment><USER13> They're saying that if the value goes _up_ you can have to pay increased property taxes that you now can't afford.

<comment><USER14> It's really not a bad problem to have.

<comment><USER13> As a purely economic position, sure, it's not awful... But if you're going to chase retirees out of communities they've lived their entire life that's kinda unfortunate.

<comment><USER14> Meh. We chase old renters out all the time and they don't get hundreds of thousands of dollars in windfall profits along the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This story reminds me of when I was a kid and the school bus would come. Often there were no seats because every seat was taken--one kid each. There was plenty of room there, but the kids who got on the bus first would ban together to prevent new kids from sitting.

Today these kids have grown up and own homes in the suburbs. New kids need to move in, but the kids who got there first refuse to let them build. That's what this story is about.

<comment><USER16> I'm a renter but please, this is about families protecting the value of the primary asset that they hope to live on in retirement. Home assets don't skyrocket in value when there is lots of supply. If we frame this thing as reasonable-needs-of-renters vs unreasonable-wants-of-homeowners, then everyone is going to remain at loggerheads.

<comment><USER17> The house that the owner lives in is not an asset. It's a durable consumer good.

Wanting your home to appreciate in value forever is like expecting your 20-year-old car to sell for more than its sticker price. It really only works for art installations, created by a collaboration of architect, engineer, and builder, with some living space inside.

Framed in these terms, most families do not have any significant assets, and a hefty chunk of their resources dedicated to maintaining their gigantic shelter-providing consumer appliance.

<comment><USER16> So you're saying that a house is not a good investment? That despite a trend in increasing property values over the long term, as we have seen in the data since .. the beginning of cities, that a price correction is coming where homes will return to ... prehistoric levels? I don't see it. Instead look at a sample of home prices in the last twenty years in the Bay Area for example, and graph it against the value of a sample of cars bought in 2000.

I suppose it's no surprise that tax laws everywhere do not classify homes as durable goods that depreciate in value.

<comment><USER18> It's the distinction between the building and the land. Buildings usually depreciate over time, but the land appreciates. In the bay area, the value of the land is significantly more than the building which is why so many people tear down houses and rebuild. Where land is cheaper people don't tear down and rebuild houses that have more life in them when they buy a house.

Residences are mainly exempted from depreciation, but commercial real estate is allowed to be depreciated because buildings do have a useful life.

<comment><USER19> Although recently in the Bay Area construction costs have skyrocketed so much that in the last 5 years my home replacement cost (for insurance) has about doubled causing the land value to actually drop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > In backing every single project in the development pipeline that day, Ms. > Trauss laid out a platform that would make her a celebrity of Bay Area > politics: how expensive new housing today would become affordable old > housing tomorrow, how San Francisco was blowing its chance to harness the > energy of an economic boom to mass-build homes that generations of residents > could enjoy. She didn't care if a proposal was for apartments or condos or > how much money its future residents had. It was a universal platform of > more. Ms. Trauss was for anything and everything, so long as it was built > tall and fast and had people living in it.

What a great article, I'm glad that not all is lost in SF Bay w.r.t. the housing crisis.

TBH, I'm amazed how the above points seem so controversial in SF Bay. It's as common-sense as it gets. Build more, always. Denying market-rate housing projects because they don't have income-restricted units doesn't help anyone in any way; I'm all for free-speech and stuff, but anyone who's trying to argue any such points that interfere with adding more capacity to the market and which make zero economic sense should be escorted out of the meetings.

</comment><comment><USER21> Go ahead and build, but make damn sure you are being rational about people's behavior when it comes to driving and transit.

My ex moved into a condominium complex that has exactly zero parking spots or loading docks for visitors, and no parking for half a mile in either direction. It's an absolute total fail. Neighbors rat on each other to get each other's cars towed because they get so upset. It's literally impossible to have a party there or even invite friends over because they simply cannot park and there is no transit available anywhere near there. There aren't any bike lanes either because it's a financially strapped city and the complex is near the border of a rich city that explicitly does things to make it harder to get between the two townships.

I'm just saying, both hands have to know what each other are doing and people have to make rational decisions at the municipal level.

<comment><USER22> ...Bellevue?

<comment><USER23> I don't think you can physically get half a mile away from the nearest available parking in Bellevue.

<comment><USER22> That's true, guess that shows you which side of the lake I live on :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> How about we talk about building infrastructure? The whole Bay Area is building like crazy, and yet the roads are getting worse (more building? more traffic lights!). Public transportation is a big joke around here. Caltrain from South San Jose to Mountain View? We have the tracks, we have the train... the train just does not go this route on weekends.

We have the same situation as a startup focused on developing a product. We have abidance of developers, and very few infrastructure engineers. When we start deploying what we have built, we are going to have a bad time.

<comment><USER25> Show the stats that Bay Area is building like crazy. I am so sick of people saying things like New York and Bay Area and California are building like crazy. No they are not. There is not one stat that shows that. Period.

<comment><USER26> I'm not sure about the Bay Area, but at least for New York, it looks like building is picking up: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-sees-biggest- home-buil...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-sees-biggest-home- building-boom-in-years-11580654688)

"Despite a weak outlook for residential real estate, the number of building permits issued in New York City for new homes surged last year to the highest pace since 2015. It was the second-highest total since the end of the last big building boom in 2008. Permits for 26,547 units of housing were issued in 2019, about 27% more than the year before ..."

<comment><USER25> So New York is building a lot because they are building more than any time since 2015? Almost as much as they built in 2008? Is this a joke?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The answer _is_ building more. (I'll say this before the people on Hacker News who are opposed to all private property suggest that "prop 13" is the problem. It's not.) The problem is they don't build enough. Build build build!

They need the California State Government to overrule local zoning limits. We need to allow dense housing near rail lines and major roads. And I think that anywhere a single-family detached home currently exists, a 2-family home should be allowed.

Build more housing! It's that simple. Prices will fall fast.

<comment><USER28> I'm from Texas, and I don't understand the stigma against developers building more housing. It drives down prices, and increases competition. Why would California citizens ever be against this?

Edit: The reason is because homeowners are competing with developers, so their own asset depreciates when supply increases. I was just thinking from the perspective of renters.

<comment><USER29> Speaking as someone who lived in Bay Area California for a few years, and Texas for several decades now, the first thing to know if that not all California has the same attitude on this, for much the same reason that Waco and Austin have different attitudes on a lot of things. In the Bay Area, there are geographical (water and hills) limits to expansion, whereas in Texas when you build more, it usually is out into the abundant open land at the edge of the city.

Also, it is quite often the case that when you build, it is either: 1) made for high-income dwellers, thus not reducing prices, because the high-income and low-income housing markets are often effectively separate markets, like cars and semi-tractor trailors. ...or... 2) the people living nearby, do think it will drive down prices, including the price of their own house, which is their only effective form of savings. If their $400,000 house becomes a $300,000 house, yeah their property taxes may go down, but they lost $100,000 in savings they intended to sell and live on elsewhere after they retire.

<comment><USER30> > 1) made for high-income dwellers, thus not reducing prices, because the > high-income and low-income housing markets are often effectively separate > markets, like cars and semi-tractor trailors.

This is really a misnomer (and it is the _linchpin_ of NIMBY arguments, especially in the Bay Area). If high income housing is not built, then high income people will inhabit and buy up the middle income housing, who in turn will inhabit and buy up low income housing, if they can find any at all.

You can see this clearly in the Bay Area. You have tiny houses going for like a couple million dollars.

In such an environment it's _impossible_ to build stuff (at least, legally) that ISN'T high income housing as high income people are the only people who can afford _any_ kind of housing in the area.

"But it's only made for high income dwellers." Build a cheap (but code- compliant) 600sqft studio in the Bay Area? Around $900/ft^2 would be the market price. It's only affordable to high income folk. A _studio_. This 161sqft studio in San Fran is $2300/month: [https://www.businessinsider.com/smallest-apartment-for- rent-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/smallest-apartment-for-rent-in-san- francisco-price-photos-2019-9#beyond-that-the-studio-has-one-window-and-a- space-heater-according-to-the-listing-the-unit-comes-with-a-dishwasher-and-in- unit-laundry-but-we-couldnt-find-them-in-the-listing-photos-or-frankly- imagine-where-they-could-possibly-fit-6)

How is it even possible to build housing that _isn 't_ for high earners in San Francisco?

The only way to change is to build a LOT more and keep building. Or, I guess, destroy the entire local economy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> _Mr. Falk looked at Mr. O'Brien and said, Dennis, look, I don't even know you, but you have to eat something, even if it's one grape, before I'll talk to you. That at least got people laughing, and pretty soon everyone acceded to the bread and cheese and grapes._

The negotiation scene is great stuff. It's gold.

Another very important line:

 _People have to realize that homelessness is connected to housing prices._

I have been told repeatedly on the internet that the cost of housing has nothing whatsoever to do with homelessness. Homeless people are viewed by many as "junkies and crazies" who just have a personal problem and are not negatively impacted by the housing situation in the US. I've seen people deny that there even is a housing crisis in the US.

</comment><comment><USER32> What happens when more people move into the area from the rest of the country and start driving to work from their newly built housing units? Silicon Valley has, at best, poor coverage of Caltrain and no coverage for BART in South Bay. If let's say 10,000 more families move to San Jose into new housing units and they all need to commute to Palo Alto for work, how exactly would they do that without choking up the already clogged freeway network? Caltrain is already packed beyond imagination during rush hour. Each year, the rush hour commute time between Palo Alto and San Jose increasing by 5 minutes and that's with limited net population growth in the area. Imagine if the population influx increased 2X or 5X. Housing is not an isolated problem. Due to decades of lobbying by the auto industry and a crippled public transportation strategy, what America really has is a transportation and infrastructure problem. Without solving that, the housing problem will never be truly solved and building new housing will degrade the quality of life of everyone in the area - both newcomers and existing residents.

<comment><USER33> This is the most common argument I hear against building, but I am firmly convinced that the reason you have the commute problem in the Bay area isn't because of the number of people, but because the resistance to building has forced development further and further out.

Consider that there is still housing growth, but its in South San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. Those people all have to drive past Los Gatos, Cambell, Cupertino, San Jose, and Sunnyvale to get to Mountain View. All your doing is increasing the amount of Miles people have to drive, and that in term increases the amount of time they spend in their cars, and clogs the roads. If you built houses in Mountain View or Palo Alto, none of those people would be on the roads, and if they were it wouldn't be for nearly as long. You don't have to take my word for it take a look at average commute times in the bay area, those increases aren't due to a 2x increase in Mountain View, its due to a 2x increase far outside with people driving in.

Public transportation is great, but the solution is to build houses near where people work, that means San Francisco and Mountain View.

<comment><USER34> The market has shown people are willing to make the commute. Not only would you need to induce the current commuters to move, you also need to ensure they aren't simply replaced by more commuters, which isn't necessarily a given.

<comment><USER35> The market has shown that there is extreme demand at the center. We need to build at the center.

There is a fixed amount of people at any point in time in a metropolitan area. Building at the center will not make new people appear. It removes people from the commuting crowd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is a great point, never thought of it that way

When it was Ms. Trauss's turn to speak, she argued that the entire notion of public comment on new construction was inherently flawed, because the beneficiaries — the people who would eventually live in the buildings — couldn't argue their side.

</comment><comment><USER37> FWIW - I'd love to see increased density where I live in Seattle, but the people who support it seem to ignore all the other stuff that has to go with it - e.g. more school capacity, better transit, requiring parking in new developments because people still have cars and the on-street parking can't scale to meet new developments...

Bringing that stuff up gets me called a NIMBY; it sometimes seems like anything that might make it more expensive for developers to build more housing is a crime against humanity. :-/

It sometimes feels like all we're really doing is enabling developers to mine our quality of life for their own profit, without actually creating enough housing to make a dent in the problem.

<comment><USER38> Yes, this is something in dire need of a solution in SF. There are not enough primary schools in the city to support even the people that currently live here (there's a lottery system where students aren't even guaranteed a spot in a high school).

I would love to see the city of SF get denser, but building condos isn't the only answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> It's very complicated. People have conflicting ideas - one the one hand, they want affordable housing (ie their rent to go down) or the other, not in my backyard.

Worth a view The Insane Battle To Sabotage a New Apartment Building Explains San Francisco's Housing Crisis [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgxwKnH8y4)

</comment><comment><USER40> This is what I chant when I'm waiting for my code to compile. I was hoping this was an article about how to make it compile faster.

(Edit: the original title was "Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build Build"! ;)

<comment><USER41> In Steve Ballmer's voice I hope.

([https://youtu.be/Vhh_GeBPOhs](https://youtu.be/Vhh_GeBPOhs))

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> [https://archive.md/39Yh4](https://archive.md/39Yh4)

</comment><comment><USER43> As mentioned in the comments, housing/shelter has a different meaning depending on your perspective (renter/owner, single/married, young/old or import/local resident).

Unless we define housing types/building codes for specific subsets, it'll most likely be just more of the same development/investments.

With many major metro areas bursting at the seams, I think they need to break ground on new 21st century cities and identify a way to lower the populations as a solution/initial step, rather than adding more deck chairs to the ship.

This gives the economy a new canvas to work with and the opportunity to move forward 100% with sustainable priciples without being encumbered by the pre- existing conditions plaguing NIMBY strongholds.

With desalination and autonomous vehicles becoming a bigger part of the modern economy, California could build horseshoe/teardrop shaped autonomous highways from the coastline cities hundreds of miles inland that allow modern logistics to fillin the gaps with public transportation and servicing basic needs (water, sanitation, public services) and accomodate new suburban models to house an ever-growing population. Outside of the earthquake zones, the can build the high-density housing they need to solve a good portion of the social crisis.

Extending cities with autonomous loops may not be the best answer, but the existing city planning models need more pioneering strategies if they want to seed future growth.

<comment><USER44> The answer was and always will be to increase density not increase transit to the suburbs. This is how you get 2 hour commutes. The idea that you are not doing the driving doesn't make a 150 mile commute seem better to me.

You can cap density by height like most European cities do or go up forever like Shanghai. But simply arguing suburbs + highways were the 1950s answer and will be the 2050s answer is missing the point.

<comment><USER45> Californians seem like people who would care about co2 and emissions, the only good solution is to build higher and denser, instead of long drives.

<comment><USER43> I've spent over an hour going 10 miles on the 405 recently, so hopefully they'll use the autonomous infrastructure to deliver work to the remote extensions/areas as well to turn back the clock on congestion a few decades in the existing cities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Fuck California and fuck the Bay Area.

Just a bold statement. I wish for change but i don't see it happening. I love the weather, love the environment and sometimes love the people here but after living here for a number of years, I am started to not understand it. I pay pretty high taxes to live here. We have the most embarrassing property tax laws that include business property. I walk to work and walk through so many homeless camps filled with poop, trash and needles. Many of our communities have failing roads, some of the worst I have experienced in the world. The roads have started groups such as "pot hole vigilantes". In most of the communities I never see a police presence. We say we are green and love the environment but we have made little progress on public transportation since the 70s. I mean hell, we cannot even get a quick rollout of new BART cars. So we want to hate on building new roads but we have no new public transportation. I am starting to run out of reasons to participate in California.

<comment><USER47> looks like you are describing a specific part of 'bay area' . lots of burbs don't have these issues.

<comment><USER48> Even Mountain View has these issues. Not to as near of a degree as say SF, Oakland, or Berkeley, but almost all of the above I've witnessed in Mountain View.

So, I wouldn't say OP is describing a specific part. It's rather pervasive all over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Articles like this and the subsequent comments always reinforce to me that the human domain will never, or perhaps _can never_ support wildlife and fauna.

As much as we like to grandstand against mass extinction of wildlife and deforestation, we will always cave to economical and social pressures of modern life which almost exclusively require resource extraction and destruction of the biosphere.

<comment><USER50> There isn't a single pro wildlife/forest view expressed in this article, what's being _explicitly_ fought against here by YIMBY, and later Falk, are:

 _... letters to elected officials, and at the open microphone that Mr. Falk observed at the City Council meetings, residents said things like "too aggressive," "not respectful," "embarrassment," "outraged," "audacity," "very urban," "deeply upset," "unsightly," "monstrosity," "inconceivable," "simply outrageous," "vehemently opposed," "sheer scope," "very wrong," "blocking views," "does not conform," "property values will be destroyed," and "will allow more crime to be committed."_

If preserving wildlife and forests can be equated with preserving suburban lifestyles and property values, then yes, it's perhaps already lost and we should all be quite sad.

<comment> reading-at-work > If preserving wildlife and forests can be equated with preserving suburban > lifestyles and property values

It can't, and shouldn't, be equated to that. Denser urban living, i.e. building more housing in cities, reduces suburban sprawl. That's a good thing if you care about the environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Lafayette, the town in the article, is nearly an hour away from SF by train. Should we really be building more housing relatively far away from the jobs? The trains and roads are packed. What about focusing on high density housing that's closer to the jobs in Oakland and SF? Isn't it better for people to be able to walk to work or ride a bike?

I'm not asking rhetorically.

</comment><comment><USER52> Fun Fact: if three cities(San Jose, San Francisco, NYC) in America were to loosen up housing planning rules, America's GDP would be 4% higher, that is incredible in of itself, source: (paywall - [https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/01/16/the-wests- bigge...](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/01/16/the-wests-biggest- economic-policy-mistake?frsc=dg%7Ce))

Although I think California especially needs new housing, the bay area in particular has a housing issue which is somewhat artificially created due to a number of large (google, facebook, etc) and smaller tech companies requiring a "buts in seat" mentality and a philosophy that all "important" jobs be based in the bay area near their HQ's. Its really quite sad as a job that can be done anywhere is forced to be located in one of the most expensive areas on earth.

<comment><USER53> Prices have hit their limits, and companies are more willing to entertain the idea that qualified talent exists outside of the Bay Area. Remote work is growing, and some portion of that growth is certainly attributable to the Bay Area housing market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Article: _" Hitting that number will require building more everything: Subsidized housing. Market-rate housing. Homes, apartments, condos and co-ops. Three hundred and fifteen apartments on prime parcels of towns like Lafayette."_

I feel weird sort of agreeing with the wealthy home owners in _outlying_ small towns. Why should the state adopt a "more of everything" policy? The American and California model of low-density suburban building is completely broken and "more of everything" is basically saying more of the same. A higher density approach with the building concentrated in the centralized cities and perhaps some of the "towns" surrounded by city (Menlo Park or Brisbane).

I mean, it's obvious false that "more of everything is the only way to meet the goal". Of course, you could build that much housing in higher density urban areas.

<comment><USER55> It's a fair point. What makes Lafayette a good place to build without increasing sprawl or traffic that it is right on a BART line. "More of everything" should probably be caveated with "more of everything near public transit".

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> In this future, is there nowhere for those of us who just want to some damned trees and nature and quiet and dark where we live? You buy a quiet place where you can see they sky, but it gets expensive so newcomers replace it with what you left originally, so you leave again to a quiet place where you can see the sky, but it gets expensive so newcomers replace it with what you left originally, so this time you wise up and move somewhere with likeminded people who zone it for trees and quiet and dark, but then that gets expensive too, so newcomers rally for zoning reform before tearing it all down again...

Different people value density differently, but apparently my willingness to pay a premium to live somewhere with lower density makes me an evil NIMBY.

</comment><comment><USER57> Tech doesn't need a location, it should branch out, away from stupid policies that drive housing prices up

</comment><comment><USER58> Honest question: how do we address the housing crisis in the Bay Area without turning it into Los Angeles?

<comment><USER59> Rezone the area around Golden Gate Park and turn it into a dense metropolis.

You could 10x the density around there and be able to support the population. You've got wide streets, services, and it isn't landfill.

Honestly though, I feel like it isn't really a crisis. It's mostly rich people fighting with other rich people over whose backyard to build in. There are no real YIMBYs, just people who want to live in certain areas they don't currently live in.

Most of the poors have already been displaced. We pretend like they are the focus because it's good for politics, but the reality is the diversity is already gone.

<comment><USER60> Every property within 1/4 mile of the N-Judah streetcar line should have over- the-counter, by-right zoning approval for 7-story buildings with zero parking and no setbacks.

<comment><USER61> I used to live right near the park, 1/4 mile from the N-Judah. The infrastructure in that area can barely support the housing stock that exists right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Having been born and raised in a major city, I'm certainly biased, but I truly believe that suburbs should go away. Every part of a suburb seems so insular, so wasteful, so outmoded. A one family house requires maintenance, heating and wiring that would be so much more efficient with even the smallest apartment complex. Lawns are ridiculous, especially in the parts of the country where grass is not indigenous. Why the hell are we spending so much water and energy to maintain a goddamn green rectangle?

HOAs don't seem to do much besides execute petty laws. Neighborhoods, while they can be diverse, will never approach a city in terms of allowing people of different backgrounds, races, etc. to interact. There's a particular reason cities vote more democratic than suburbs: It's hard to vote for such hateful policies when you interact with the people effected every day.

I get that there's this nostalgia or rather inertia about suburbs. I get that people grew up in a one family house with a lawn in their nice homogeneous town. But it needs to go away.

<comment><USER63> "I get that some people like it, but I don't, so it needs to go away."

<comment><USER62> More like this thing that people like is energy inefficient, produces pollution and leads to more homogeneous, less diverse communities. And therefore it should go away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I'm all for more housing but we need to make sure we have the appropriate infrastructure to support it, water, sewage treatment, roads, etc.

The city I live in has been growing a lot, but so has traffic and crime.

<comment><USER65> Do you live in California? If so, your city's infrastructure may be struggling due to the county's lagging property tax revenue, which in turn is a result of Prop 13.

<comment><USER64> Not exactly, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello- Roos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello-Roos)

Mello Roos more than doubles my Prop 13 property taxes. My neighborhood gives way more than its fair share. The schools suck, the roads are too narrow, I could go on. Its poor planning and probably out-right corruption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> foxx-boxx At some point high prices should force companies to move their operations, hence price should drop.

</comment><comment><USER66> > He had now argued, and paid for, both sides of the same case.

And this is why we need the English Rule. We're the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_fees%29)

</comment><comment> foxx-boxx You should always respect people who was there first. When money talks, bs takes the bus: new tenants are needed to support bankrupt pension system anyway.

Even international law admits that.

High cost of real estate should force many people to sell their homes and leave to cheaper places.

</comment><comment><USER67> The fact is that American laws and policies are being set-up to serve only constituent - older baby boomers. This is especially true at the local level. I went to a city council meeting for my city, and it was 90% older white folks. Although the city is young and 60% Asian. There was constant stream of anti-development voices, with hardly anyone to counter them. This is almost non representative of the majority view, but younger people with work, commutes, and kids simply cannot attend these meetings. I have heard recently that SF is moving towards a representative focus group model to get community input instead of this random council meetings. That is the path forward. Abandon these open forums that only serves retirees. Increase outreach, create focus groups, and be more representative of the city's makeup

<comment><USER47> depends on who owns the houses. I live in a suburb in bay area where population is almost all house owners are indian and chinese. They have the same preferences as "older baby boomers".

Are you implying that if in your case if they were reversed we would see some sort of different outcomes? Asians are more open to getting their house values going down by new development?

<comment><USER67> I am just saying that input should be taken from a population that represents the city by moving away from a process that biases input

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I might be hopelessly naive, but why not do the new growth somewhere else? The BA is pretty obviously "full" already, and adding more housing of any kind isn't going to make it better.

<comment><USER69> The BA isn't "full" by any reasonable measure. See this list of US cities by population density for comparison: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_d...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_population_density). San Francisco is 21st on the list, at 17,246 people per sq mi; the next densest city in the Bay Area is Daly City, which is 49th at 13,703 people per sq mi.

By contrast, NYC has 27,016 people per sq mi; the densest suburb of Boston (Somerville) has 18,431; West Hollywood has 18,297.

There's plenty of room for more people in the Bay Area, if denser housing is allowed.

<comment><USER68> It's subjective, of course, but when I worked in NYC, I was able to commute from an area with a density more like 2,000 per sq mi. Maybe an hour each way. That's what I think of as "not full".

I believe I looked for something like that in the BA and it doesn't really exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> That is internal struggle. But one must look at any external struggle. If you have people moving in without any means of stopping, just build build build would only help that much

</comment><comment><USER71> [https://web.archive.org/web/20200214180644/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200214180644/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/business/economy/housing- crisis-conor-dougherty-golden-gates.html)

<comment><USER72> Not sure what you want to express with this link?

<comment><USER73> It gets around the NYT paywall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Text please?

<comment><USER75> [https://pad.riseup.net/p/BS4bd3KJQR7-DeHuBI-Q- keep](https://pad.riseup.net/p/BS4bd3KJQR7-DeHuBI-Q-keep)

</comment></comment><comment> foxx-boxx Instead of trying to buy Greenland from wealthy socialist Europeans, Trump should buy some tropical islands, like Madagascar for instance.

California can move it's operations to these cheaper places.

</comment><comment><USER76> build build build

</comment><comment><USER77> Haha I thought this was about compilation. This headline is how I spend about a quarter of my day.

</comment><comment><USER78> click bait gone wild

Edit: looks like the title changed now

<comment><USER79> It's like they wanted to riff on the failed '08 candidate for the vice presidency but couldn't allow themselves to do it.

<comment><USER80> To me it sounds like "developers, developers, developers"

But I am glad that the media is reporting this. California is slowly killing itself with its housing policy. I live in an area where there are only people who are either rich retirees or whose parents have bought real estate before the market went crazy. And these people kill any effort to build more. It's basically impossible for regular people to live here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> This might be an unpopular question but why is everyone certain that more housing will cut homelessness when these California cities are already quite dense (not the most in the world but more than most of the US)?

Why don't we assume more housing will not simply bring more non-homeless from elsewhere? The homeless are certainly not the most competitive home buyers.

<comment><USER81> More housing is not a panacea for homelessness - but supply and demand are real. Increasing supply will decrease equilibrium price; this increase in affordability is one measure (of the many necessary) to help homelessness.

<comment><USER34> >Increasing supply will decrease equilibrium price

Hmm but this is not a given is it? I think many would move to SF if housing was only slightly cheaper.

<comment><USER81> It is a given and is basic economics. Supply and demand curves certainly apply to housing.

Increasing housing shifts the supply line to the right - which satisfies greater demand at a lower price, all else equal. That is what "many would move to SF if housing was only slightly cheaper" means in economic terms.

Shifting the demand curve to the right is not driven by quantity of housing, but instead by things like quality of life, supply of jobs, etc. Its the difference between the slope of the line and its position.

<comment><USER34> >It is a given and is basic economics. Supply and demand curves certainly apply to housing.

Yes but the angle of those curves are important. There are elastic and inelastic demands for resources. There can be unfulfilled demand at the current equilibrium price. Its basic economics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Not luxury apartments. Projects. In the 50s and 60s NYC built loads of massive housing projects for the poorest people on welfare. This is something that is needed in California. Most of the homeless can't afford fancy new builds, the state should be building big cheap buildings to house the people who can't afford anything. Say there are 20k units required in the Bay Area, each building can have 20 floors, 25 aprts per floor, that's just 40 buildings, say one in each suburb.

Here are NYC ones, the biggest prjects are 1000-2000 units each [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Housing_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Housing_Authority_properties)

<comment><USER83> Have you seen what happens in those projects? I lived in Chicago and those were not a good place to live because of incredible levels of crime.

What we need is to stop clustering so much around SF and LA. There are lots of places in CA that are basically empty. What we need is more ways for people to make money remotely so they can live in lower density areas and still make good living. High density is not the answer, people need space and we have space.

<comment><USER84> The reason we have a housing crises is because people want high density living. Our market crises is a literal refutation of your proposed solution.

<comment><USER83> What proof do you have for that? Why isn't it more likely that what people actually want is good paying jobs without having to spend 2 hours in traffic every day?

Say you have 2 options, one is to live in a lower density area with plenty of playgrounds for your kids, space to decompress and have fun, and a good paying job that you can do from home or close by.

Option two is being shoved like sardines into a 20 story high density apartment building for the privilege of what? What's the point of high density living? So you can all die from a pandemic faster? Or so you can eat at fancy restaurants unhealthy food?

Are you sure that your bubble isn't shaping your opinion?

<comment><USER84> "What proof do you have for that?"

rural areas are depopulating and cities/metropolitan areas are rising in both population and inflation adjusted real estate prices, both in the US and around the world.

Say you have 2 options...

This is a false framing. For most, the choice is between lower density area with a long usually car based commute or a higher density area with a shorter non car based commute. Things become more complicated when you have a life partner and you both have jobs, then you need to minimize the commutes while maximizing the job opportunities for both of you, and that happens best within cities.

"shoved like sardines into a 20 story high density apartment building"

this is also false framing. Some of the highest density neighborhoods in the united states are filled with 3 story buildings, like triple decker homes (ex: somerville MA) that are essentially 5k sqft homes 3 story homes subdivided into 3 units, one on each floor.

"What's the point of high density living"

The point of high density living is that it takes you less time to get to the things you want to do, it allows you to live without using a car to get everywhere, it allows for higher specializations of places, ex higher densities can support a niche board game store and gathering place, it allows a higher group of people to live within your commute shed so that you have more opportunities to make friends.

The past 5000 years of human history has included a nearly universal and constant theme of people moving from the countryside to the city. Post WWII America was a slight abberation from that, but we're back on trend like the rest of the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Housing:

* European way - build centrally design urban cities, with infrastructure, schools, public transportation, community spaces, recreation/business spaces.

* American way - let for-profit developers build luxury houses around enormous google/fb/other tech giant campuses, and let struggling communities to figure out how to live with it...

Medical care:

* European way - build an efficient medical system which is paid by taxes, affordable to everyone.

* American way - let medical system to be a for profit business and put a burden of medical insurance for all on the medium income population and let them figure it out

Good news on the housing - the companies reached the plato of the salaries for the bay area employees and many actively moving to the other urban areas which should spread the stress from the bay area. Its is 21st century, and if a company can't establish an effective distributed collaboration processes, it does not deserve to be a leader in high tech space.

<comment><USER86> On healthcare, this isn't true simply because of how drastically different approaches are across Europe. There are countries there that have something a lot like ACA, just better implemented (Switzerland). There are countries with true single payer nationalized systems (UK). There are countries where healthcare is run by a bunch of private non-profit coops for most people, but those who want to can opt out into a fully private system (Germany). These all work much better than what US has, but not all of them are paid entirely or even mostly by taxes.

<comment><USER85> yeah, I've exaggerated a bit with the comparison, thanks for correcting. I think it will be right to say, that a decent medical care is a right, not a privilege, in most of the European countries. And the private hospitals come to play when you want a premium services. But even then you know the price list most of the services, or it is all included for a reasonable price.

In either case, I see quite a different approach - attempt to provide social oriented services by just relaying the problems on the working population, instead of owning the problem and solving the proper way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I have been asking someone..anyone..to give me an example of how building more housing leads to affordable housing. Like in real life..

Every high density over crowded over built city ..and this is global..is unaffordable. It has expensive utilities, higher taxes and bad declining infrastructure that the government can't seem to replace or upgrade.

We have pestilence, rodent infestations, higher crime, big government and more taxes.

I also don't understand the fairness of a non house owning young majority with little or no financial intelligence or experience due to being educated by free public education and state nannyship getting to vote on imposing punitive high taxes aimed to displace the very people whose taxes and employment history and financial savvy that actually funded said free public education.

Clearly this means that we have done a bad job of public education using property taxes. In fact, most of the wealth is accrued due to immigrant net worth and who didn't even avail the free public school education.

Wasting more public money on public education and using property taxes to fund said education is the real problem that needs fixing. There is no end to taxation. Especially because those who are not home owners can force more property taxes on the minority who own it.

Put another way..why should someone who can't handle their personal finances be allowed to make decisions at govt level. This would never happen with employment. How can the unsavvy have-nots have a say about punitive taxation upon the haves who get to gain nothing from the punitive taxes. This is especially crucial to ask considering that the government in Sacramento has a piss poor track record on managing money and shown a lack of transparency.

<comment><USER88> > Every high density over crowded over built city ..and this is global..is > unaffordable. It has expensive utilities, higher taxes and bad declining > infrastructure that the government can't seem to replace or upgrade.

That's not true. Houston and Dallas are big cities without affordability problems. Sunnyvale, CA (quite dense, and becoming more so, but suffering from these NIMBY problems) is one of the safest cities in the country. Well below the average crime rate of many rural towns.

<comment><USER87> 1\. [..]In Sunnyvale, CA you have a 1 in 611 chance of becoming a victim of violent crime. Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery and assault. With regards to property crime, you have a 1 in 62 chance of becoming a victim. Property crimes include burglary, theft and vehicle theft.[..]

2\. Dallas and Houston are not in the same category as Bay Area. Texas is not California.

3\. Crime in California stats are unreliable due to passing of Prop 47. Crimes are not reported or recorded or booked due to not wanting to incarcerate people. This has actually increased petty crimes all over Bay Area(I don't know about other cities in CA..I do know about my backyard however)..you only have to subscribe to NIXLE to see that even those reported is increasing.

The cops won't even come to an ongoing crime scene unless someone's life is in immediate danger.

Wrt San Francisco..just type 'Chesa Boudin' in google news to see what's happening in San Francisco. This is our lives and our backyards and built upon our tax dollars and work. It's being auctioned away by those who have no stake and have never contributed to it.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47)

<comment><USER88> > Dallas and Houston are not in the same category as Bay Area. Texas is not > California.

You're right, they're both much larger cities. The Dallas metro area is the 4th largest in the US, the Bay Area is 12th. So Dallas is bigger.

> In Sunnyvale, CA you have a 1 in 611 chance of becoming a victim of violent > crime. Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery and assault. With > regards to property crime, you have a 1 in 62 chance of becoming a victim. > Property crimes include burglary, theft and vehicle theft.[..]

According to [https://www.areavibes.com/sunnyvale- ca/crime/](https://www.areavibes.com/sunnyvale-ca/crime/) you have a 255/100000 (my number is higher than yours BTW) likelihood of being a victim of a violent crime. Nationally, it's 381/100000 or 1 in 263. Thus, sunnyvale is safer. It is known to be safer even since before 2014 when California crime statistics were screwed up. The historical data is available online.

You are a troll.

<comment><USER87> There is no way I can have a conversation with someone who resorts to childish name calling and making it personal.

I know my backyard. You don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Either ways my recommendation is to make a informed choice of NIMBY vs YIMBY. It appeared so far that NIMBY is winning and large number of people support NIMBY. This need not be because all these are evil people who oppose three points but might have legitimate reasons for their stand.

Make an informed choice rather than blindly picking sides.

<comment><USER90> Why don't you fill us in on what those reasons might be instead of making strawman arguments?

<comment><USER89> >A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

I do not think strawman argument means what you think it means.

I am not even refuting YIMBY argument. I am suggesting that since there is a NIMBY group which has already been successfully achieving their goals and appears to be in minority on HN, everyone should spend some time understanding their arguments as well before supporting YIMBY. Informed choice is critical than mindless support.

I am not even trying to refute YIMBY here. I am only pointing out that HN might be an echo chamber to make an informed choice.

<comment><USER91> Why don't you fill us in on what those reasons might be?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Let me the ask the YIMBY crowd this...what is stopping 2 dozen do you to pool funds together to build a community where land is affordable and have tailored amenities. And you can literally have your own transport to anywhere. Co-Own your shared vacation paradises. Private schools. Incorporated communities. Invest in farms and automation. You can grow your own food and use economics instead of govt bureaucracy to make it all work.

A satellite community of multiple such youthful communities is a win-win for all. That's what real estate companies do, but they profit enormously from it with little value. They are building on top of existing infrastructure and not passing the monetary benefits of it and pocketing it for their purposes.

I am not being flippant because I have spent a few years on such a model. A community of 6000 can be supported in 600 acres that will actually not only be self sustaining but can also be income producing if you add farms and value added businesses for those who don't wish full time jobs. There are monetary and communal benefits. There will be less reliance on govt and less wastage of resources.

120 is a good number because it would satisfy the Dunbar number limits. It shouldn't be difficult to have a nice proportion of ageing, young and middle aged populations for diversity.

It's just a modern tech supported version of eco villages and ..dare I say..cults. But they fail because they never take the necessary survival factor of monetary stability and most eschew technology. These don't have to and will be better supported.

<comment><USER92> Because the great value of cities lies in the network effects that arise when hundreds of thousands of people live and work in the same neighborhoods. Ideas cross-polinate, spawn, and mutate creating wealth. And the value produced by a city increases super-linearly, perhaps exponentially, as population density increases. Policies that place artificial limits on city densities choke off that engine of wealth.

It may be possible to create an extremely dense, high population, productive charter city with an enormous investment of capital, but it would be far easier to simply remove the restraints that hold back our existing cities.

<comment><USER87> It's not easy clearly if it means that someone else has to pay the price of it without any benefit.

If you want older people/property owning seniors on fixed incomes to move out, pay them. It's as simple as that.

The truth is that most cannot pay. The value of the dollar they earn is imaginary. The whole system from Wall Street to wages to taxes is a Ponzi scheme.

Land has value. Water or access to water has value. Inherent value. Everything else is value-added. So you have to pay more for a resource that is fixed or shrinking while population increases.

It's very simple. Buy it off people. OR. It's far cheaper to add value upon affordable land and water. To not build on something available and abundant and to not ADD value to it is a poverty of creativity and intelligence. To want to evict older citizens or punitively tax them to displace them to take their land and water is not only lazy but also immoral.

<comment><USER92> Immoral is forcing thousands of people to live on the streets in squalor because people don't like change.

No one is calling for Grandma to be evicted. Property taxes for residents could be allowed to accumulate unpaid until sale or transfer of a property.

<comment><USER87> People don't have to live in squalor in expensive Bay Area. They can move. But there is a red carpet in Ca for homeless from other states to live because they are the poverty porn displayed to milk more taxes. Oldest trick in the politicians handbook to impose more taxes. It's always 'compassion' isn't it? The reason to extract more taxes and usually championed by those who don't have to contribute anything.

So if accumulated property tax will remain unpaid, how does any of it help keep people 'off the streets and no in squalor'?

What is the Big Plan?

If people are going to be taxed after their death, is it like a death tax? Forced charity?

Theft by proxy? This is literally thuggery. The current youth population and the government are working hand in hand as fellow thugs. And engaging in elder financial abuse.

However, there is a solution. One can impose hefty inheritance taxes. One can impose higher tax bracket for foreign owned properties. I would like to see that rather than citizens turning against citizens of their own country.

Further..has any of the YIMBYs sat in city council meetings and looked at city and county budgets. Or the state budget? There is a LOT of money. There are a lot of infrastructure improvements to be made that will make life better for everyone. And yet Sacramento does nothing.

None of the young non home owning YIMBY professionals ever question that. Perhaps because they have been indoctrinated in public school and taught fake economics. They have literally been hand fed to believe that nanny state is the best and higher taxes will solve everything. Perhaps it is this lack of financial literacy and responsibility that is causing them to be the handmaidens of the govt bureaucracy to act as thugs against middle class senior citizens.

Over crowded schools, inefficient DMVs, pot holes on roads, congested freeways, tolls on every stretch of freeways leading to Silicon Valley..Bart is a joke. Homeless on streets after billions spent. And more density on top of this inefficiency?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> If California were its own country, would it try to build more housing or would it put up a border wall and halt immigration? It's clear to me that Californians would choose the latter, and I don't really blame them. Deep down, everyone hates change, especially the type of transformative change that is taking place in these California suburbs.

What does Lafayette owe the people of San Francisco?--or more accurately, the people that are not from California that chose to move to San Francisco? The revolving door that defines California immigration today, where wealthy young software developers go in and middle/lower class native Californians go out, is what is hollowing out the population, shifting the culture, and causing the homelessness problem, and building more housing isn't going to fix that.

<comment><USER94> If they wanted to halt immigration, why would they build a border wall? That would be a highly expensive and ineffective way to halt immigration, for fairly obvious reasons.

<comment><USER17> One could halt immigration--or at least the kind of immigration that most anti-immigration people complain about--in a naive and oversimplified fashion by raising the minimum hourly wage of noncitizen permanent residents to the median annual household income divided by 2000 (~$32/h), raising the minimum hourly wage for temporary residents with a work-permitting visa to 125% of that (~$40/h), and raising the minimum wage of persons without any official immigration status to 150% (~$48/h) of that. In order to get a job that pays less, a person would have to show their visa, residency card, or proof of citizenship. For jobs that pay more, who cares, as long as they support local business and pay taxes?

Don't deport anybody. Don't build a wall. Just make any businesses that hire at lower wages, without first verifying citizenship or immigration status, pay the workers all their back wages.

The economics shape and are shaped by human behavior.

<comment><USER94> Wait I don't get it, why wouldn't everyone just pretend they're undocumented immigrants to get the highest pay?

<comment><USER17> Because they would lose the job to someone who can legally work for less.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> YIMBY should more properly be called YITBY (yes in their back yards).

<comment><USER95> Many of us are homeowners. Speaking for myself, I simply believe affordable housing for all is more important than my property value.

<comment><USER96> Also a homeowner, and I'm a YIMBY (or PHIMBY) for selfish reasons as well. My neighborhood is mostly old white people, because they bought their houses years ago and stayed put. Not that I have anything against them, but I'd love to have a more diverse, younger neighborhood. More neighbors also means more customers for local businesses, which means more shops and restaurants in walking distance. More neighbors would eventually also mean better public transit, because the ridership would demand it. I think the selfish benefits of more housing are often overlooked due to fear of change.

<comment><USER97> >Also a homeowner, and I'm a YIMBY (or PHIMBY) for selfish reasons as well. My neighborhood is mostly old white people, because they bought their houses years ago and stayed put.

Hmm, here I am thinking I don't really care about the skin color of my neighbors. It's none of my business. But, I try and not judge people on immutable characteristics like color and age.

<comment><USER98> GP could likely have replaced "mostly old white people" with "mostly the same demographic", but it doesn't convey the same information, even if you don't assume implied racism as you did.

The important thing being conveyed is lack of diversity, not whiteness. In the United States, saying something is "mostly white people" conveys that other ethnic groups are not present for some reason (whether it be them self- selecting to not participate or because of exclusion). The purpose is almost always to note diversity or lack-thereof, and assume that the person is making a value judgement about the people because their skin is white is to completely miss the point.

For example, if you bought a pack of starbust candies, and they were almost all orange, you might note or complain that they were almost all orange. I would do so, and orange is my favorite flavor of those. The issue is, I desire the diversity of colors and flavors, and _too much_ orange is not as good as what the added variation brings.

So, "mostly old white people" as a negative doesn't mean old people are bad, or white people are bad, or old white people are bad, but that _mostly_ old white people are not as good as a group that has more variation in it. "Mostly" is the word you should be focusing on, not the other ones.

<comment><USER99> Although if someone visited a suburban area in Japan and complained that it had "mostly old Asian people", they'd probably be called racist.

<comment><USER98> I think that depends on the context. If I was visiting that neighborhood in Japan to assess whether I wanted to live there, I think it might not come across as racist as much as similar to how I outlined the prior statement, with some variation because Japan is both a much more homogeneous society, and one where the population as a whole is shifting towards being older on average.

I would also argue that a lot of times people are called racist (or called out for saying racist things) these days are likely because people are also less likely to give others the benefit of a doubt for their actions or words. This is likely complicated in that it appears some people that do harbor racist views feel more emboldened to speak them, but I'm not sure how to pick apart how much is one and how much is the other.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Turn any tumblr into a playlist - <AUTHOR> http://www.tumbltape.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I just launched this with a buddy of mine. Its obviously inspired by Muxtape. Any feedback or suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> Very nice. Works as advertised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I like how I can easily listen to an actual friend's music instead of clicking through random muxtapes hoping to find someone with similar taste.

Great idea / execution.

</comment><comment><USER4> Very elegant. It's like the soundtrack to my, um, friends' lives.

Little fold-outs that reveal the text that accompanied each post/mp3 would be handy. Also, being able to save tumbltapes to a favourites list would be nice.

A couple of little bugs. First, it had the same track three times in the playlist, possibly because of multiple edits to a single post. Second, it didn't do a perfect job on extracting the band and track names on some of the songs. Both these bugs are demonstrated here: <http://www.tumbltape.com/audiographical>

Really good work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the bug report. It actually looks like those are 3 separate posts, at least thats how tumblr's API is treating it.

As far as song names, its really tough to extract them, since people actually write content about the audio and its not always as straight forward as artist - track name. We make our best guess, but you can specify a title and track name using our tagging system. On the tumblr post, hit "advanced" and add a tag in this format "tt:artist - track name". That will take privilege over the text guess.

Thanks again. We really appreciate the feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like it's down for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think we have seen any down time yet. All systems look alright at the time of writing and have been stable throughout the day. Try it again. Thanks!

<comment><USER5> Ah you're right - must have been my network. This is some good stuff!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Recipe for success

1- Followed link, 2- Like the UI and click on random thumbnail, 3- Started to listen, like the music. 4- Oops I have been listening for the last 15 minutes, Nice Nice.

I would have chosen a different name. What happens when you start to aggregate other services. You could be the FF of MP3s.</comment>


10 Awesome Things Built on the Facebook API - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2007/05/02/10-awesome-things-built-on-the-facebook-api/ <comment><AUTHOR> These items are vary interesting and creative. No wonder Facebook does so well.

<comment><USER2> And Adam is a gifted writer, or lets say he has a neck of picking the top N things built on top of an API. Also check <http://mashable.com/2007/04/29/7-awesome-things-built-on-the-digg-api/>

<comment><USER3> Yes, I 'm not sure if any of these 10 mashes satisfies my criteria for awesome.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you use a GPG key with GitHub? - <AUTHOR> I've never worked any place that has required use of gpg. Nobody has ever asked me about gpg and GitHub.<p>https://help.github.com/articles/generating-a-new-gpg-key/ <comment><USER2> Yes.

Nobody asked me to do so, but all my setup (SSH auth, encryption, password manager, mail signatures) is build around GPG, so it was easy to add the signing in my git config.

I use a RSA8192 key as master key so it can last for a while. Then I have RSA4096 subkeys for signature, encryption and authentication. All subkeys are on my Yubikey configured with touch to operate. So when I am on a computer, I plug my Yubikey in there, and whenever I want to do a SSH login, a git commit signing, a password access (pass), a mail signing or anything else GPG related I have to touch my Yubikey.

The setup of such system is not so trivial, but once it is done it is working really well. My digital identity is build around my GPG keys, and they are stored safely in my Yubikey, and to operate them I have to be physically there and press it, so it can not be used remotely if my computer is compromised.

<comment><USER3> I have a literal stack of yubikeys after getting many of them shoved into my hand at trade shows. I'd love to actually use them for anything but OTP. Can you document this process? Care to share your setup?

How do you handle, if at all, ssh/gpg on a mobile device?

Is it possible to have both yubikey based cert authentication for SSH/GPG in addition to normal password based cert auth on the same server/user?

Does this work on MacOS as well as Linux?

<comment><USER4> Here's a decent guide: [https://github.com/drduh/YubiKey- Guide](https://github.com/drduh/YubiKey-Guide)

PS I'd love to get some shoved into my hand. Paid $100 for my pair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes, I use it all the time. We didn't require it at work, until one employee started signing their commits, and everyone else thought the "verified" badge for the commit on github looked cool, so everyone else started doing it. Now mostly everyone does it at work.

After adding your public key to your github account, you can set git to sign your commits by default.

You can do that in ~/.gitconfig (or /<repo>/.git/config for specific repos).

        [user]
            signingkey = DEADBEEF
        [commit]
            gpgsign = true

Then when you commit, it will try to sign the commit. When you push the commit to github, it will automatically show up as "verified" in the commit history.

[https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Signing-Your-Work](https://git- scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Signing-Your-Work)

[https://help.github.com/articles/signing- commits/](https://help.github.com/articles/signing-commits/)

<comment><USER6> > everyone else thought the "verified" badge for the commit on github looked > cool

Hahaha, that's also why I started using it :) Interesting how these kind of small badges work as incentives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It might be that people who use it are more likely to engage this thread, and those who don't are going to skim past the thread and not respond. A whole bunch of yeses might not accurately represent the distribution of people using it/people not using it.

That in mind, I'll say I'm not using it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I do, but only because git and GitHub made it so easy to setup.

I've read both that it can help with security, and that it doesn't help at all, but for the 5 minutes it took to setup I figured it can't hurt and the green verified check box is nice to see visually!

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, we enforce it at work. It's part of verifying the source of code running in production.

</comment><comment><USER10> I set it up when they launched but GPG's instability using a Yubikey and the general hassle of managing multiple keys meant that I disabled it since nobody else ever checked. I'd really like a post-90s GPG with good support for multiple hardware keys - we've talked about enabling it for work but I cringe at the support burden GPG would add.

<comment><USER11> I've got it working reliably enough. See [https://github.com/naggie/dotfiles/blob/master/etc/yubikey.m...](https://github.com/naggie/dotfiles/blob/master/etc/yubikey.md) for a guide and

and [https://github.com/naggie/dotfiles/blob/master/home/.functio...](https://github.com/naggie/dotfiles/blob/master/home/.functions.sh) for various functions I use to get gpg-agent working remotely (and transparently with tmux) without locking anything up.

<comment><USER10> I had no trouble getting if working but it regularly loses the ability to see USB devices until I restart gpg-agent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It depends on the repository. Most of the time, I use Git for personal stuff that isn't ever going to be pushed anywhere.

For repositories where I want to sign my commits, I configure each local checkout individually:

        git config commit.gpgsign true
        git config push.gpgsign false
        git config user.signingkey "${MY_FINGERPRINT?}"

</comment><comment><USER13> I do :) Never had any problem where GPG would have helped me by certifying I was the author, but we never know...

a quick guide if you need [https://pedrorijo.com/blog/git- gpg/](https://pedrorijo.com/blog/git-gpg/)

</comment><comment><USER14> I do for my personal projects (which are public), but also everyone in my company does for work stuff too. (We also require 2FA for all accounts in the org.)

It's important that any builds pushed out to production are from signed sources.

</comment><comment><USER15> Yes, exclusively, and I enforce signed pushes on repositories where possible.

</comment><comment><USER16> Yes

with GitHub, with GitLab, on macOS commandline and Tower clients, very easy to setup!

I find it adds some trust to commits for public repositories. It's not very useful, more like a nice to have.

</comment><comment><USER17> Now, yes.

Thanks for asking this, I just finished setting it up.

For anyone reading this:

If:

1\. you are on macOS,

2\. you used brew to install GnuPG: brew install gnupg,

3\. after generating your GPG key pair, these two commands fail...

        $ git commit -S
        $ echo "test" | gpg --clearsign

...try adding this line to your bash profile:

        export GPG_TTY="$(tty)"

</comment><comment><USER18> No. The only system I've ever encountered that required source-code-signing is Debian, who've done it for years.

(Note that merely signing the code with some key is not enough! You have to verify that that's the key of the person you think it is. Doing this properly is hard work.)

<comment><USER19> If you're using GitHub, it does this fairly nicely — you just upload your public key and it provides a green "verified" badge next to commits indicating that they were signed by a key attached to your profile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yes, but it's not required at work. Though I do a fair bit of OSS, too.

</comment><comment><USER21> Yup. I think about 3 years ago I setup automatic signing of all my commits. I've been too lazy to disable it and I dislike not being verified in any manner, so I upload my public GPG key everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yes, and it's required for all of the developers that work at our company. We used GPG signed commits before we even moved to Github (we previously used Bitbucket).

It's dead simple to setup, even on Windows.

</comment><comment><USER23> No. I started to set it up but ran into some problem I can't remember and I didn't bother continuing. But I certainly see the value in it.

</comment><comment><USER24> I do, but GitHub unverifies my e-mail all the time - thus rendering all my GPG signatures there "Unverified" :(

</comment><comment><USER25> Sure. I need to sign tags, commits and releases. When you maintain a GNU package it's mandatory to sign releases.

</comment><comment><USER26> Yep, both GitHub and the internal corporate (private) BitBucket server.

Why?

I just like that little bit of extra "yes, this was me" onion layer of security.

</comment><comment><USER27> Yes, on GitLab. It works really well and helps to ensure that commits in my name and email are actually by me.

</comment><comment><USER28> Yes, for OSS projects and for work. At work there's only a handful of us signing our commits.

</comment><comment><USER29> Yes. I was required to do it at work, and it's fairly seamless to set up.

</comment><comment><USER30> Yes, especially since my e-mails are also signed through GPG.

</comment><comment><USER31> Yes</comment>


T-Mobile to give every user unlimited data - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekwire.com/2016/t-mobile-shifting-entirely-unlimited-data-new-bid-shake-wireless-industry/ <comment><USER2> All video will be downgraded to 480p unless you pay extra. That is as blatant as a net neutrality violation as they get. It was pretty clear that this was T-Mobile's ultimate end goal when they introduced the Binge On feature that allowed data to circumvent data caps. I'm just sad that we allowed them to get away with this obvious bait and switch tactic to get public approval for anti- net neutrality behavior.

</comment><comment><USER3> As a very satisfied T-Mobile customer, these changes sound awful to me.

\- $70/month, not $50/month. That's a 40% price increase

\- Wifi hotspot now costs an additional $15/month, or runs only at 2G speeds

\- The existing $50/month plan will no longer be available to new users who are joining T-Mobile.

I don't use a whole bunch of data. ~2GB/month is perfectly sufficient for me. What I really love about my current plan is the cheap price ($50 per month), and the fact that it includes extremely fast wifi hotspot. These are the exact 2 things they have taken away from the plan. Maybe this is a positive development for many customers, but I personally hate it.

<comment><USER4> If you only use 2GB/month, why not switch to google fi? You'll have better coverage and a lower monthly cost.

<comment><USER5> does not support iPhone

<comment><USER6> If you have a limited number of devices, or use a lot of data, Verizon beats out Project Fi -- Fi shines when you have multiple devices (in my case, phone, tablet, laptop) with modems, and don't want to pay a $10/device/mo access fee.

<comment><USER7> Are you kidding? I have a single smartphone under Verizon for 2 lousy gigs a month, and I'm paying $80/mth. That's after my employer discount.

<comment><USER6> Maybe you should switch to one of the new plans? Currently it looks like what you describe is $35/mo: [http://www.verizonwireless.com/landingpages/verizon- plan/](http://www.verizonwireless.com/landingpages/verizon-plan/)

<comment><USER8> +$20 per device (plus tax and fees).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So, $15/mo extra for packets to originate from a device other than your phone. Another $25/mo for "HD Video" (That is, if you pay $25, Uncle Legere won't take your TCP connection out back and bust it's knee-caps)

How the hell did we end up in the situation where Verizon is the most sensible carrier with regard to net neutrality (A bit is a bit is a bit, be it from laptop, phone, tablet, netflix, google, or HN).

<comment><USER5> Too right, this unlimited is a facade for something that is completely limited in arbitrary ways. Mobile data has to come from a specific device doing specific things, i.e not HD video or using a device with a bigger screen and keyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> $70/mo for the first line is very expensive. You really have to be using more than 5-6 GB of data every month for this to make sense.

<comment><USER10> But you still get other things. Video and music streaming is unmetered and you get free roaming in many countries with text and data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I use MetroPCS. If it's available where you live, you can't beat it. $60/month for truly unlimited, non throttled 4G with unlimited tethering. Speeds are usually 10-15 Mbps. I use hundreds of gigs/month tethered to my laptop.

<comment><USER12> Since you still have them, do you know why they haven't been fully merged with T-Mobile since they were bought years ago?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like bullshit where you have to pay extra to stream video at more than 480p. Where are the unlimited data in that.

<comment><USER14> Would you prefer paying the $30 or $50 / month for 2GB like a few years ago? T-Mobile has consistently demonstrated an appetite for pushing the boundaries of their network and their offerings for customers. I wouldn't be surprised if this (like many other previous up-charges) is phased out after a period of time.

Caveat: I'm a happy T-Mobile customer.

<comment><USER15> The plan that was $35 for 5gb was pretty good though... twice that for "unlimited" doesn't seem like such a good deal unless you are hitting the limit.

<comment><USER16> The $30 plan with 5GB data (unlimited, but throttled afterward) and 100 minutes still exists (and I use it) -> [https://prepaid- phones.t-mobile.com/other-prepaid-plans](https://prepaid- phones.t-mobile.com/other-prepaid-plans)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm one of those people that has an old old old AT&T plan with the original unlimited data package. Even if it's limited to 23GB if the area has some congestion, at $80/mo it's still a way better deal for me than most of these plans.

I average 5-7gb/data a month, and almost none of it is music or video. It's all just average use, email, Facebook, iMessage, stuff like that. It's amazing how much data Reddit can soak up.

But none of the newer plans make any sense to me. Just no compelling reason to switch.

<comment><USER18> How do you use so much data? I am on reddit all the time (about 4 hours a day according to app usage) and only used about 300MB of data per month? Even with Pokemon, Messenger (Viber, WhatsApp and Messenger), Facebook, Email etc, I average around 1-2GB a month.

<comment><USER17> I have an iPhone 6s. I did notice that my data usage almost doubled from my 5s with no changes in my behavior. I do send & receive more photos now. I use Instagram more.

Looking through data usage per app, stuff adds up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Urg... I wish TMobile had better coverage where I love. I'm stuck with AT&T which just halved my data plan, but they removed overages do it kinda makes up for it...

</comment><comment><USER19> What happens if youtube switches even the content servers to HTTPS? How will they be able to cap that? Also in general: If a mp4-file is directly hosted on a webpage which is served over HTTPS: How will they detect this?

<comment><USER20> They can probably just throttle the bandwidth for connections to certain services like YouTube which will result in the player automatically selecting a lower quality stream.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> How do they enforce the tethering 2G cap? A proxy that you could easily configure on the computer? And would evading the video res lock be as easy as using a proxy/VPN of your own?</comment>