From their perspective, of course it would be unfortunate that your parents cannot continue to have their lifestyle subsidized. For the rest of us, that money could gladly be used for schools, infrastructure, etc

Luckily, if someone is being priced out by fair property taxes, they still own a valuable asset.

So, "their perspective" is that their home is where they live, and your perspective is that their home is an asset. From your perspective, they should be glad their asset has multiplied in value, and they should be happy to pay the government based on that. From their perspective, they didn't ask for the asset to increase in value, and they're just trying to live there — while people like you resent them for living there and not building a high-rise apartment building instead.

How about I go to your hometown and bully your folks out of their house? They ought to be fine with that, right? It's just an asset. Come on.

Try the San Gabriel valley.

The smoke point of olive oil varies significantly from extra light to extra virgin. Extra virgin actually has a much lower smoke point than canola oil.

In a pandemic, incentivizing people to stay home instead of working is exactly what we should be doing.

If you think a 2.4% tax is extremist, in a city that already has a much lower tax burden than most tech hubs, then Seattle might not a good cultural fit. Perhaps the south or Midwest would align better?

Seattle and Washington have historically been all about smaller governments, efficient spending, and no income tax. Even without this new tax, Seattle is overflowing with tax funds from other sources, such as increasing property tax revenues. They’ve been absolutely wasteful with it all, and quality of life in Seattle has deteriorated significantly in the last decade.

Such policies and the politicians who back them are a result of a rush of recent transplants from places like SF, and are not reflective of Seattle’s true culture.

> of all the large "FANGish" tech companies, Uber actually has the most experience with non-HQ teams building business-critical systems.

Tangential, but the core product of AWS, EC2, was developed in South Africa and (largely) continues to be today.

Your comment illustrates how REST forces you towards an OOP-style: https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdo...

Sure you can definitely create an OOP-style architecture that allows only 4 functions to exist on any object (create, read, update, delete)

Programmers have had the ability to do that since the 1960s and guess what... nobody ever wanted to do it.

With the advent of HTTP (and it's fixed set of verbs and return codes), that didn't somehow invalidate all the prior decades of OOP. lol. However RESTful fanboys disagree with me on that.

Centrist political analysts of The Atlantic sort hate Twitter. They have to engage with the platform with their job and are constantly dunked on by the online left, who are far better at Twitter than they are.

The Twitter users are the same volunteers canvassing, phone banking, and donating to drive the left’s resurgent mass movement.

Also, note how the article accepted the Warren campaign’s story about Bernie Sanders making a sexist statement as a matter of fact.

Pretending homeless people are transient and from elsewhere is a persistent myth used to dehumanize them. In a 2018 study, only 6% of homeless people reported being from out-of-state: https://theevergrey.com/seahomeless-coming-to-seattle-for-se...

Two points:

1. I find the use of the word 'dehumanize' to be unnecessary and hyperbolic. This is commonly used to shut down opinions that concern some cohort of people. It is not precise or helpful, and is an appeal to emotion. I didn't state anywhere that homeless people aren't human. I did state that people need to live within their means, obey the laws, respect public spaces, and not be coddled by lax/unequal enforcement of laws. That's not dehumanizing, it is common sense. The proliferation of tents, trash, drug abuse, and property crime in Seattle is wholly unacceptable and the result of short-sighted governance. Pushing back on bad policy to protect my interests is not dehumanizing someone else - if anything, those who trash this otherwise beautiful city are dehumanizing its residents.

2. I addressed this specific survey that you linked to in my comment. The point in time survey is not rigorous. It does not verify the identities or past backgrounds of any respondents. It relies solely on their goodwill to answer truthfully. The homeless who respond have an incentive to lie about where they are from, because making it look like they are long-time local residents is more likely to result in public support for them. The volunteers who conduct these surveys are all either participants in the homeless industrial complex (see https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-homelessness) or are activists who ideologically support the homeless. These volunteers coach homeless to respond in ways that are favorable to the homeless themselves, to these organizations that constitute the homeless-industrial complex, and the ideologies of those same activists. The only data that would be acceptable regarding the origins of the homeless is strongly-verified/provable identification of respondents. Anything short of that is not rigorous and acceptable, and therefore it is not a myth to claim that the majority of homeless people in Seattle are transients from elsewhere.

> 9. Global carbon emissions are not reduced, mostly because of lack of initiative by China and 3rd world countries.

Wealthy nations have produced massive emissions during their industrialization, and continue to do so on a per-capita basis. The global north has the responsibility to cut back to a greater extent so poorer countries can develop.