Skip Navigation

帖子
62
评论
43
加入于
2 yr. ago

embedded machine learning research engineer - georgist - urbanist - environmentalist

  • I've never met a person actually making that argument, though. I'm certainly not advocating removing building safety codes, only the NIMBY bullshit like exclusionary zoning that was literally designed to keep people of color far away from white people. Even the opening paragraphs of Wikipedia page for the YIMBY movement say it's primarily in favor of removing things like exclusionary zoning and parking minimums:

    The YIMBY movement (short for "yes in my back yard") is a pro-housing movement[1] that focuses on encouraging new housing, opposing density limits (such as single-family zoning), and supporting public transportation. It stands in opposition to NIMBY ("not in my back yard") tendencies, which generally oppose most forms of urban development in order to maintain the status quo.[2][3][4]

    As a popular organized movement in the United States, the YIMBY movement began in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 2010s amid a housing affordability crisis and has subsequently become a potent political force in local, state, and national[5][6] politics in the United States.[7][8]

    The YIMBY position supports increasing the supply of housing within cities where housing costs have escalated to unaffordable levels.[9] They have also supported infrastructure development projects like improving housing development[10] (especially for affordable housing[11] or trailer parks[12]), high-speed rail lines,[13][4] homeless shelters,[14] day cares,[15] schools, universities and colleges,[16][17] bike lanes, and pedestrian safety infrastructure.[3] YIMBYs often seek rezoning that would allow denser housing to be produced or the repurposing of obsolete buildings, such as shopping malls, into housing.[18][19][20] Cities that have adopted YIMBY policies have seen substantial increase in housing supply and reductions in rent.[21]

    The YIMBY movement has supporters across the political spectrum, including left-leaning adherents who believe housing production is a social justice issue, free-market libertarian proponents who think the supply of housing should not be regulated by the government, and environmentalists who believe land use reform will slow down exurban development into natural areas.[22] Some YIMBYs also support efforts to shape growth in the public interest such as transit-oriented development,[23][24] green construction,[25] or expanding the role of public housing. YIMBYs argue cities can be made increasingly affordable and accessible by building more infill housing,[26][27][28]: 1  and that greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced by denser cities.[29]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YIMBY

  • Plus, it's just a weird argument to be making that we should be just forcefully shipping homeless people out to Bumretch, Kentucky to live in a dilapidated shed. No jobs, no opportunities.

    The places where housing is needed are cities. The places with jobs and opportunities. And the cities that are most expensive are the ones with the absolute lowest vacancy rates.

    Additionally, why would we actually want zero vacancies? Vacancies are good for the average person. Vacancies mean you can shop for a new home or apartment without finding someone to swap units with you. Vacancies mean your landlord has a credible threat of vacancy if they demand too much in rent. Vacancies give power to renters and buyers. Why would any left-leaning person willingly -- much less gleefully -- take bargaining power away from renters and give it to landlords on a silver platter?

    At this point, I'm half-convinced this "vacancy truth" rhetoric the person you're responding to is espousing is a psyop by landlords to protect their economic interests.

  • I only mention North America because the US and Canada are the only two countries I have lived in, and thus have the most intimate knowledge of how their urban land use policies work.

    But even outside of North America, many places have some form of restrictive land use policy. In the UK, I know they have the council system, where there's a local council that has veto power over every single development. It may not be the same form as North American zoning, but the net effect on making it de facto illegal to build enough housing.

    I'm also aware of many other European countries having strict land use policies that make it extraordinarily difficult if not impossible to build denser housing, hence why many European cities (cough cough Amsterdam) have ludicrous housing crises.

    Japan is perhaps the most notable exception that I'm aware of. In the 1980s and 1990s, they had the mother of all real estate bubbles burst, which devastated their economy, and the lesson they learned was they needed to make it easier to build housing to avoid a similar thing ever again occurring. They made land use policies uniform and quite permissive at the national level, allowing people to build most housing by right in most locations. The result? Tokyo, despite being the most populous metro area in the world, is actually remarkably affordable, even to minimum wage earners.

  • If housing is expensive where you live, and most of the land is tied up in single-family homes, what's stopping people from just converting their homes into plexes, or straight-up selling to someone who will turn a couple single-family lots into an apartment complex that houses hundreds?

    If you're anywhere in North America, chances are it's literally illegal to do so, because of restrictive zoning and other NIMBY land use policies that make it literally illegal to build enough housing in the places that need it most.

    So the solution, then, is to make it legal and easy to build housing so people don't have to fight over scraps.

  • Political Memes @lemmy.world

    The absolute state of online housing discourse

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    globalnews.ca /news/10765855/ontario-legislation-restrict-bike-lanes-city-streets/
  • And things like vertical bifacial solar panels can work especially amazingly on grazing land that isn't suitable for crops.

    Counter-intuitive as they may look, they actually have a number of benefits:

    1. The panels face east and west, meaning they generate peak power in the morning and evening, which corresponds to peak demand => less need for energy storage to bridge the gap between the mid-day peak in production from traditional PV and the aforementioned morning and evening demand peaks.
    2. The panels are vertical, which makes them easier and cheaper to maintain, as dust, snow, and rain naturally shed from their surfaces.
    3. The panels get less direct energy during mid-day, keeping their surfaces cooler. Turns out cooler solar panels are more efficient at converting light energy into electrical energy.
    4. The arrangement lends itself very naturally to agrivoltaics, which means you can derive more yields from a given piece of land and use less land overall than if you had segregated uses.
    5. The compatibility with agrivoltaics allows farmers to diversify their incomes streams and/or become energy self-sufficient.
  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Montreal becomes largest North American city to eliminate mandatory minimum parking spots

    cultmtl.com /2024/06/montreal-becomes-largest-north-american-city-to-eliminate-mandatory-minimum-parking-spots/
  • Silvopasture is an ancient practice that integrates trees and pasture into a single system for raising livestock. Pastures with trees sequester five to 10 times as much carbon as those of the same size that are treeless while maintaining or increasing productivity and providing a suite of additional benefits. Livestock continue to emit the greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, but these are more than offset by carbon sequestration, at least until soil carbon saturation is achieved.

    Silvopasture also offer financial benefits for farmers and ranchers. Livestock, trees, and other forest products, such as nuts, fruit, and mushrooms, generate income on different time horizons. And help protect farmers from risk. The health and productivity of both animals and the land improve.

    https://drawdown.org/solutions/silvopasture

    Trees in silvopasture systems provide livestock with protection from sun and wind, which can increase animal comfort and improve production. Trees can provide shade in the summer and windbreaks in the winter, allowing livestock to moderate their own temperature. Heat stress in livestock has been associated with decreased feed intake, increased water intake, and negative effects on production, reproductive health, milk yields, fitness, and longevity.[4][5]

    Certain tree types can also serve as fodder for livestock. Trees may produce fruit or nuts that can be eaten by livestock while still on the tree or after they have fallen. The leaves of trees may serve as forage as well, and silvopasture managers can utilize trees as forage by felling the tree so that it can be eaten by livestock, or by using coppicing or pollarding to encourage leaf growth where it is accessible to livestock.[1]

    Well-managed silvopasture systems can produce as much forage as open-pasture systems under favorable circumstances. Silvopasture systems have also been observed to produce forage of higher nutritive quality than non-silvopasture forage under certain conditions. Increased forage availability has been observed in silvopasture systems compared to open-pasture systems under drought conditions, where the combination of shade from trees and water uptake from tree roots may reduce drought impacts.[1]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Part of my ongoing efforts to rebrand urbanist ideas as patriotic and pro-freedom (which they unironically are)

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Part of my ongoing efforts to rebrand bicycles as the ultimate freedom vehicle (which they unironically are)

  • Excellent point, brother. Always choose AMERICAN MUSCLE over COMMIE OIL.

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    WOKE transit vs PATRIOT transit

  • The raison d'être for RISC-V is domain-specific architecture. Currently, computational demands are growing exponentially (especially with AI), but Moore's Law is ending, which means we can no longer meet our computational demands by scaling single-core speed on general-purpose CPUs. Instead, we are needing to create custom architectures for handling particular computational loads to eke out more performance. Things like NPUs, TPUs, etc.

    The trouble is designing and producing these domain-specific architectures is expensive af, especially given the closed-source nature of computer hardware at the moment. And all that time, effort, and money just to produce a niche chip used for a niche application? The economics don't economic.

    But with an open ISA like RISC-V, it's both possible and legal to do things like create an open-source chip design and put it on GitHub. In fact, several of those exist already. This significantly lowers the costs of designing domain-specific architectures, as you can now just fork an existing chip and make some domain-specific modifications/additions. A great example of this is PERCIVAL: Open-Source Posit RISC-V Core with Quire Capability. You could clone their repo and spin up their custom RISC-V posit chip on an FPGA today if you wanted to.

  • Yeah, this is the one piece a lot of people miss: in any decently competitive market, individual firms have effectively zero power to set prices; they must instead accept the prices determined by the market.

    Knowing that, the solution to that sort of corporate BS, then, is to ensure markets are competitive by busting monopolies, lowering barriers to entry, and getting money out of politics to reduce the effect of lobbying.

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    You will buy the oil and be happy

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Solutions to car dependency

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Lawns and car storage — name a more wasteful use of land

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Use those rights-of-way for a better purpose

  • Exactly. When the accused has paid off half the jury, you shouldn't put much stock in the verdict.

    The only thing I care about when determining whether something is a genocide is the facts of the case (which are overwhelmingly in favor of describing the Uyghur genocide as a genocide), not the outcome of a highly political vote by countries all with their own motives and interests.

  • Imagine if someone defended nazis with "they were calmly denying the Holocaust". I've seen far too many tankies denying the Uyghur genocide every chance they get. Like you say, it doesn't matter the tone; genocide denial is itself a line you don't cross.

  • They'll ban you for acknowledging the existence of the Uyghur genocide, for one

    Edit: wording

  • Somehow internet populists have become convinced that liberalism = the government never does anything. Ask literally any economist and they will tell you government intervention and regulation are needed in many things.

    For example, read this study on the policy views of practicing economists: https://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf

    You will find that most economists strongly support things like environmental, food and drug safety, and occupational safety regulations.

    Convincing people liberalism is an evil capitalist ploy to deregulate at all costs is a conservative psyop, and judging from comments like the one to which you're responding, it's working.

  • If they help to get people out of cars (including electric cars), I see them as a win. Orders of magnitude less impactful than cars.

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Sustainable modes of transit

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    And lots of public transit investment

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Parking minimums in a nutshell:

  • They’re not a solution simply because they’re still cars, and therefore take up the same grossly excessive amount of space as non-autonomous cars do.

    Yeah, the only things autonomous cars might reduce are:

    1. Parking, but only if we forego our current private ownership model and everyone starts doing self-driving robo-taxis everywhere (unlikely)
    2. Road fatalities, but only if the self-driving tech proves statistically better than human drivers in a wide range of conditions (jury is still out)

    It's the same fundamental problem that electric cars have: geometry. Cars -- even if electric and self-driving -- are simply grossly inefficient at moving people for the amount of land they require:

  • What's ironic is my city, Montreal, is arguably the biggest cycling city in North America. Even in winter the bike lanes are filled with cyclists. Why? Turns out that all you need is good-quality bike infrastructure that you actually maintain in the winter and people will happily bike year-round.

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    There is no one-size-fits-all solution to transportation

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Owning a car in Montreal costs an average of $1,310 per month

    montreal.citynews.ca /2024/02/21/owning-car-montreal-costs/
  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    People would probably hate cars a lot less if they were limited in size and speed to a golf cart

  • Sounds similar to some of the research my sister has done in her PhD so far. As I understand, she had a bunch of snapshots of proteins from a cryo electron microscope, but these snapshots are 2D. She used ML to construct 3D shapes of different types of proteins. And finding the shape of a protein is important because the shape defines the function. It's crazy stuff that would be ludicrously difficult and time-consuming to try to do manually.

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    Space used for cars in downtown Houston

  • Fuck Cars @lemmy.world

    We don't need trucks or diesel to move freight in cities, just cargo trams

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    radical rule

  • 196 @lemmy.blahaj.zone

    trains rule

  • This is how I wanna reclaim that land:

    Either that or a buttload of housing

  • Definitely. Cities aren't loud; cars are loud. I'm convinced if some eccentric person built an entire car-free, transit-oriented city from the ground up, the vast majority of people would absolutely love living there. I don't know a single person who doesn't love a nice car-free street in the middle of a city.

  • A life goal of mine is to try to develop tools to help automate sustainable agriculture as much as possible. As I see it, part of the reason we keep on doing the monocultures is because the alternatives are just so dang labor-intensive, and anything that helps sustainable polycultures, agroforestry, etc. be more automated and less labor-intensive makes it easier for us to finally kick our current soil-destroying and ecosystem-obliterating habits.