Honestly I’ve unironically missed the entirety of the image at first, I went directly to the text. And probably a lot of internet-savvy people would, this kind of image is useless decoration 90% of the time and people are trained to not look at it. Same concept as in that research where they asked people to find the current population number on a webpage and they had a very hard time, despite the value being in big red digits or something equally distinctive.
This is a pretty common thing in the American Midwest. You see it a lot around houses on the tops of hills, especially in new construction. It looks kinda silly for a few years but it’s the best you can do sometimes.
like i tend to always pay attention to how nice a property looks when i’m travelling past it, and good god it looks so much more enjoyable when you have a bunch of shade and greenery around you!
Properties without some sort of tree/hedge wall surrounding it out in the open just look absolutely miserable and trigger a long dormant part of my brain that fears being picked off by a giant bird.
It’s a fire and falling hazard having trees that close to the home. There are places here in California where you legally have to have a 100 foot wide firebreak around the building, like up around the foothills where wildfires are common.
I love this idea and am filing it away for the imaginary future where I own a home and need more greenery, damn it! Because it’s going to be so lush and green. And there will be water and mountains and a rainbow…
This website is amazing! How have I never heard of this before?! Did you know that using glue will make your cheese extra stretchy? Who would have guessed it? This is my new favorite site.
I mean, of course. For the record, that wasn’t the type that cites its sources intrinsically as part of its response creation process, although it wouldn’t be immune to hallucinations even if it was.
just thinking logistically, I imagine that happened a lot. Anyway I expect a decent number of his calls were made by aides and he just took the phone after they got through to the right person.
Im surprised the aides from each side didnt do all the logistics of connecting with one another and the president wasnt just handed a phone with the call already connected through.
That was the aides from Obama’s side calling 100%. The minister was newly elected, maybe fairly new to politics as a whole? Maybe he just doesn’t like middlemen. Edit: **Re-**elected, I missed that. I guess the second option then.
Its a news site but the only place you can find the date of the article is in the URL. Sometimes I am baffled by the weird design decisions people are making.
I did this before cellphone and any sort of digital maps. It was hell. I memorized my city, that wasn’t the hard part. The hard part was the people who didn’t have their houses properly labeled with their address. Bonus points if they left their porch light off, as well.
“Why is my pizza cold?”
“Because I had to use complex mathematics to derive your house number among all of the unnumbered houses on your street.”
”Because I had to use complex mathematics to derive your house number among all of the unnumbered houses on your street."
Wouldn’t even be able to do that in the neighborhood I grew up in. They numbered the houses in the order they were built/the lots were purchased and that wasn’t often next to each other lol. So 64, 67, 88, 90 are next to each other for instance.
Wasn’t on any sort of grid pattern either. The roads just kinda meandered around willy nilly and would sometimes loop back on itself with random “bridge” connecting roads which I know isn’t extremely uncommon but definitely added to the difficulty of navigation.
Ahh yes, you grew up in a west coast subdivision. I am assuming either a late 60s to early 80s split level or a slightly more upscale true two story neighborhood, where every house is one of either two models, or a mirror image of those models to create the illusion of variation.
It is always funny, the first time you go to a friend’s house and use the bathroom, their mom will offer to show you, but you would just be like, “I know where it is.”
You got some right! All 60s-70s houses. Mine was split level. Decidedly middle class. However, it was smack in the Midwest and basically all the houses are about as different as houses built in that era can be. Now, the subdivision that popped up in the field next to my neighborhood in the 00s were cookie cutter 3-4 of the same houses (but sometimes the floor plans/elevations were mirrored to make it seem different haha).
I grew up in a split level as well. When I die, I hope in the afterlife I find whichever architect designed the American split level. I have so many design questions, mostly why was the billards room more important than a functional living room that could fit everybody at once? And if the billards room was so important, why is it always next to the laundry room?
Lol! We didn’t have a billiards room but we did have a wet bar that literally was never used and for the first 10 or so years of my life I was afraid to go near.
They aren’t called billards rooms these days, almost always just “family rooms” but they typically are essentially sized to fit a regulation table and a bar.
The neighborhood I grew up in had a scheme that made sense once you were told what it was, but you’d never figure it out looking around.
There was a center point to the town where all addresses started, as you went away from that point in any direction the numbers got bigger. Numbers are 3 digits. Each block away from the center gets a new top digit, so the four blocks that touch one of the axis lines are 100, one block away is 200 etc. There’s a North, South, East and West, so there can be a 200 North Something St. and a 200 South Something St. and they will occasionally get each other’s mail.
One side of the street gets the even tens, the other side gets the fives. So 330 West Example Ave is across the street from 335 West Example Ave.
Many homes sat on multiple lots, and they skipped the unused lot numbers (the tens digit) and even then they would skip a number in between, so it’s not unusual to see 205 East Example ave on the corner, and 235 East Example ave is next door.
Apartments or townhouses with multiple addresses on the same lot get a letter suffix, so you might have a 635B West Name St.
There are other context clues, like the North-South roads are “streets” and the East-West roads are “avenues”. But still it would be difficult to grasp this system if you weren’t told about it because “There’s three houses along this block, why are the numbers 30 apart?”
The misnumbered/not numbered houses is still a big issue. GPS can only be relied on to get you in the general area, and even then sometimes it points you to the middle of a field.
My real gripe is apartments. People will often fail to give you the apartment number and even if they do, every single complex has their own numbering system and layout. There is one complex near here where the signs on the buildings are completely illegible at night due to the lights above them casting shadows. I hate having to go there.
Almost every apartment complex I have ever been in has followed the exact same numbering pattern.
A single building will have the floors be a letter with each unit being a number like 01 while a multi building complex will have the buildings designated as letters and will use 3 digit numbering schemes starting in the 100s. The first digit applies to floor while the second two apply to units.
If a complex has more than 26 buildings, that is when things become funky. The 27th building will likely be the AA building and it will either be the second building chronologically. Next comes BB and it will either be the 4th or 28th building, and so on.
Another thing they might do is just have those duplicate named buildings be sectioned off into a slightly more prestigious part of the property, gate it off and give it a name like Chateau @ Bronson Heights (assuming the apartment complex is named Bronson heights). If something like that is done, they will just completely restart the numbering convention.
Also, if a complex layout doesn’t seem like it makes sense while being driven, say an E next to an S, imagine it with a top down view, they likely named left to right regardless of cul de sacs, so you should have a rough idea of where each building logically should be if not chronological by drive.
What specifically about my post makes you think I’m angry? And defensive doesn’t even make sense as we haven’t spoken before. Maybe take a deep breath yeah?
I’m not the delivery driver you replied to. I just thought it was dismissive to reply to a person saying “it’s difficult to figure out apt numbers” with a long explanation on why they’re wrong and how it’s actually easy.
Why would you find it dismissive of me to take time out of my day to give somebody a basic overview of the very thing they outright told me confused them?
Because your source of info is places you’ve lived at personally, and I assume a delivery driver would have seen a wider range of apartments than you. So without additional context, you seem to be making assumptions that most places would be like the ones you’ve seen, and “correcting” someone based on that assumption.
I live in an apartment complex where the only distinguisher between the two halves is street number, they share a name entirely and have the same numbers.
Nothing changed drove for Grubhub for awhile. Google maps isn’t 100% correct and the amount of customers expecting food to be delivered with their porch lights off and no numbers on their homes. It was a shit show.
I delivered pizza for a few years in my early years, and poorly lit addresses were the absolute worst. I was delivering in the pre-smartphone but post mapquest era, and we had a computer in the shop with a touch screen (which was crazy at the time) map on it so you could figure out where we were going. But God forbid you ended up on a one way street looking for an address that was poorly labeled or unlit and you got somebody behind you laying on their horn… At some point I bought a 1000 candle spotlight that I used at night, and that got me pulled over several times because people would call the police about “a slow driving car shining a spotlight out of its window”… Like… For fucks sake. I’m just trying to deliver some pizza.
With that said, while working I smoked a bunch of weed, listened to a bunch of good music, and generally got tipped well so… It was a good time.
I had to visit a house the other week in a place I hadn’t been before. Sat nav got me to the post code just fine only but the problem is it’s one of those villages on a long road where everyone thinks they are special and don’t need house number. Instead they all have names. It’s horrid! Driving up and down real slow, blocking the road, while I read every bloody house name.
There were a couple of times where I just turned around and went back to the store with the pizza and said no one was home. That would have been one of those times.
Just so you know you don’t need to go to prison in order to get your butthole destroyed. It’s much easier to just go on Grindr, which is only an emotional prison.
“I’m gonna use a word I really shouldn’t use. But people might get mad at me for doing so. But on the other hand, the word is really edgy and cool… That’s it! I’ll just cover up part of the word so people don’t notice I’m using it! I’m so smart!”
Originally in the book it seems to have been “dude”, then someone made a post where they changed it to “nigga”, but it wasn’t censored. Later on someone decided to censor the word. So not the same people at work there (I mean, I think not lol)
Some people can in fact use this word. This sentence reads as if you know the person really shouldn’t be using it because you know their race isn’t allowed to, however, there is indeed a race that is allowed to and the original poster could very well belong to that.
The fact that you can’t understand how this could have been posted by one person uncensored, then screencapped by a second, then censored by a third, or even fourth person, fifth person, etc, is frankly just icing on the cake.
I really appreciate your analysis of what I can and can’t understand along with your obnoxious pendatry. Very valuable information, thank you. Now kindly fuck off.
The thing about quicksand that bothers me is that they never explain where you would encounter it. So I just assumed all sand could potentially become quicksand if it was deep enough. I guess I thought beaches weren’t deep enough
You need fine sand and lots of water so beaches weren’t exactly wrong but it’s still somewhat rare. Warning sign on Texel (Netherlands). Swamps are another candidate though there’s also other traps there, as well as mudflats… or at least it’s a very similar phenomenon the German term is different (Schlickloch vs. Treibsand) but it’s essentially the same thing. Don’t go walking from island to island without someone who can read the ground, maps would be useless they change every low tide. Also don’t leave when the water is already coming back. Also, don’t complain to your hotel that the sea is gone it’s a feature, not a bug.
This was always the reason at school for why we weren’t allowed to splash on puddles or walk in the mud. Even as a kid I called bullshit because I never saw tons of abandoned shoes in the mud. As a parent now I wonder how the heck they keep the kids out of the mud and puddles as well as they did
I think the difference with the first 5 is that a manufacturer sets the price, scalpers purchase it by that price and sells it at a much higher one.
The house price just fluctuates continuously and when the “investor” or “scalper” purchases it, it was available at that price for everyone (or did he purchase it from another scalper?)
Yes, the problem is the high prices of houses, but to reduce it we need to either increase supply (encourage building more, perhaps changing zoning laws to allow more homes etc) or reduce demand (increase interest rates (that though make it harder for regular people), restricting corporations from purchases, banning Airbnb (yes, they drive prices up, and if you use them, you are contributing to it), penalizing if unit is not occupied (though enforcement of this will be hard), or banning foreign investors.
It’s wild that you don’t see how exploitable such a tax would be. Specifically, it would make gentrification occur more easily and quickly.
If a developer became interested in rebuilding a poor neighborhood, their interest alone would dramatically raise the land value of the area. The now untenable tax burden would force the current residents to move out, and because the developer would be the only one interested in buying, the developer has nearly complete control over the sale price.
Developer is not controlling the price, they’re the highest bidder. It seems like a positive anyway - existing owners can sell at a high rate, government can get more tax, more tax can fund more support for the poor
The current owner can no longer afford the taxes and is forced to sell whether or not they want to. The developer can position themselves as the “highest bidder” by an extremely small margin over the property’s historical value, denying the current owner the windfall from the recent spike in land value. Despite the increased land value, no one else will be interested in purchasing the property at this valuation until the developer’s project is complete, as the project itself is the cause for the spike.
This is effectively eminent domain for private developers. If you’re a homeowner and you’ve been paying your property taxes just fine for the past decade on a $40,000/year salary, you shouldn’t suddenly become unable to afford to live there because someone said you live in a “hot area” or whatever.
Pardon, I don’t get this - “The developer can position themselves as the “highest bidder” by an extremely small margin over the property’s historical value, denying the current owner the windfall from the recent removede in land value.” - Wouldn’t ask/bid and transaction value determine the land value? Why does the land value tax increase a lot if the best offered purchase value will be only slightly higher than historical?
For existing houses the investors might very well overbid the market price to get the lot, thereby making it inaccessible for any individual to realistically buy. They’ll gladly overpay the market price on adjacent lots so they can “regenerate” the area, by stuffing four houses into two lots. Any individual simply wanting to buy the existing lot is out of luck, because it wouldn’t ever make sense for them to overpay the asking price.
For new lots, it works so that whenever a city council decides to change the zoning of a lot of land to allow for residential construction, the price is set for investors to bid on. The entire lot is bought by an “investor” or “developer” who will either build on the lot or sell individual parts of the lot for others to build on. There’s no risk. There isn’t necessarily any work carried out. There’s no service provided. It’s just paying for ownership at one price, shuffling the papers and selling at a higher.
It’s the same fucking thing as scalping, only over longer time and for larger amounts.
So the idea that “If it’s so easy, why doesn’t everybody do it?” or “It’s fair, because they paid above asking price, you could just have bid higher” is wrong because I for one can’t afford to buy ten fucking houses just to get one of them at the right price.
I don’t enjoy the whole foreign investor solution, I think it’s a scape goat.
It matters little to me if the person fucking me was born in China or 10 miles from me. Being born in this country doesn’t mean you can screw over the rest of the population.
I’d rather see hard limits on how much property one can own. There is no reason for anyone other than the state to own those huge apartment complexes. Dismantle the land barons class, no one should own enough to house thousands.
I think a less heavy-handed way of doing that is, every person can have 1 (one) permanent residence, and all other property you own incurs a much higher property tax. If you’re filthy rich and want a couple of houses, fine, but you’re gonna get taxed for it. But that will stop speculative house buying, more or less. Of course, this will never happen because states race to the bottom to offer low taxes to attract rich people. Another issue is, what if someone wants to live in a house but can’t afford to own it? Renting is the best option for a lot of people. I think that is solvable, but my idea would inevitably take a lot of property off the rental market.
I don’t think it is a scape goat. For example, many people from China are not trusting Chinese Yen, they often purchase property purely to hold value and won’t even rent it to others, because it would cause wear and tear. So it is basically a wasted unoccupied unit.
How much property is owned by foreigners paying taxes while not collecting rent? That sounds nuts compared to just holding the dollars they’d use to buy the house in an offshore bank.
Americans do this with property too. If we only regulated foreigners from doing it, that would allow american investors the opportunity to do it more beduase they have less investors to compete with.
If you allow foreigners (keep in mind that those who do this, but only are very rich in their countries, but also are very rich compared to you or me) to purchase property now you not only have demand created by locals but you are adding foreign demand. This all drives the price up.
Even if Americans would do the same thing the prices would be still lower, because now they are out priced.
restricting corporations from purchases, banning Airbnb (yes, they drive prices up, and if you use them, you are contributing to it), penalizing if unit is not occupied (though enforcement of this will be hard), or banning foreign investors.
Agreed, we should be doing all of those things. Corporations should not be able to own any kind of housing at all, and multi unit buildings should be under non-profit co-ops.
And to penalize unoccupied housing, we should have a georgist taxation system.
The only time it makes sense for me for a corporation to own a residence is if they have a need to put up their own employees in that area regularly, or if I needed a manager living on site (like some storage facilities have). Corporations should not make their money renting or buying/selling single family homes.
I’m not sure I’d agree that corporate ownership is necessarily bad If you want to rent an apartment because you don’t want to buy into a co-op then how do you go about this? Someone needs to own the apartment to rent to you Personally I don’t mind if that initial investment comes from a person or a corporation
Who are you paying? Other owners of the apartment? So they put in extra up front so they can rent to you? If so do you get to pay back their initial investment over time? If it’s non profit does that mean they can’t take anything in excess of what they paid or do they get payed x amount over the top?
I’m fine with co-ops generally but when it comes to rentals I just don’t see how you’d make a “not for profit” rental But I mean if someone wants to set one up and prove me wrong that’d be cool. In theory nothing is stopping them
The house price just fluctuates continuously and when the “investor” or “scalper” purchases it, it was available at that price for everyone.
That doesn’t mean everyone (or people who needed it) have the ability to purchase it. The down-payment is simply too high that most people who want a house cannot afford it.
This is the same as scalping other goods, they have a unfair advantage in the market, and then they can make back all their money via rent and selling the house. They have nearly no way to lose in this game.
The unfair advantage is what making people angry; they are not making money by labor, insight, or even luck. The only reason these people are becoming richer is because they started rich.
I absolutely agree with your solution BTW, just arguing that people scalping houses are very much brain-dead scalpers. Many of them probably don’t even care about the basic human right to shelter.
The house price just fluctuates continuously and when the “investor” or “scalper” purchases it, it was available at that price for everyone
The goods from manufacturers are available at that price for everyone too, right?
And then as another commenter said, sometimes down payments on housing are outside the budgets of certain groups in society - a point I suppose you can also make for the manufactured goods too.
I think the difference with the first 5 is that a manufacturer sets the price, scalpers purchase it by that price and sells it at a much higher one.
I don’t see the difference here with housing. If a real estate owner buys a property then sells that property for higher than they purchased it, the market will either respond by buying or not. The same is true for manufactured goods: if the price set at MSRP doesn’t not elicit a response from the market, then the manufacturer may lower their prices until a response is drawn - or hold out until the rest of the economy shifts (a gamble on the part of the manufacturer).
I don’t think your reasons substantiate your claims.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.