You are trying to twist their point into something else.

Statement “I use grok to consume current events”

Response “grok is not a reliable source for information, especially current events or politics”

Your response “but Gemini generated images that right wingers didn’t like”

Ok? Are those images the news? Is that a way to consume current events? Do you think I’m a proponent of people using LLMs to digest current events and am only against grok specifically? What exactly is your argument against mine (that grok shouldn’t be used to consume current events). Are you agreeing? Or are you suggesting that people should use grok for current events because Gemini produced images you didn’t like?

Where do you increase supply? The most desirable places to live like urban centers, or more likely more and wider suburbs. In a vacuum many people will say it doesn’t matter and poor people should move to where they can afford; but many people have strong connections to where they grew up and are not inclined to abandon their lifelong support systems because the pricing in one area has gone up.

How do you increase supply? Ugly 5-over-1s are cheap to make but not desirable, not particularly dense. Single family homes are even less dense. Most supply proponents are talking about these or luxury condos.

How much is the new supply? If we build new homes but they are still unattainable to the people who need them, then we didn’t help much right? Which leads me to

Who gets the new supply? Are they put on the open market for speculators/investors/landlords/private equity to gobble up or are there provisions for ensuring the housing goes to people who don’t already have housing or are physically real people not llcs etc.

Tl;dr we could build a million houses but if they are in undesirable places, unfavorable designs, or allowed to be snatched up and resold at the same high prices we already have, then supply alone wouldn’t fix unaffordability of housing across the nation.

Tech workers have been laid off (without pips) en masse for the past 24 months, so it seems like I’m talking to a model trained in 2023 to be so absent of the obvious facts around us in the industry.

That’s why I ask. Because you’re either not in the industry and talking bullshit, not paying attention to the world around you, or a bot.

Like walmart, mcdonalds, amazon, target, home depot? It’s incredible how insulated the HN audience is to the real life day-to-day concerns of workers in the United States.

Do you genuinely think McDonald’s is building a months long case against a fry cook? That Amazon is building a months long case against a delivery driver or warehouse worker who refused to pee in a bottle? That target is putting a cashier on a pip for months and allowing lost sales or theft?

Nobody needs these billionaires; we can create new billionaires and new products. They think they bring some sort of ultra speciality but in reality they are doing something millions want to do and their monopolistic success is preventing others from succeeding; knocking these giants down makes rooms for new businesses and products. This is the entire thrust of a capitalistic economy.

Realistically tires and brakes are already subject to sales taxes and are not subject to review at annual vehicle inspections. We probably should enforce that cars on the roads have working brakes and tires but that’s seemingly beside the point of how we pay for the maintenance of the roads.

You are the one who suggested Harlan Crowe has no interest in the outcomes of any Supreme Court cases and that him giving undisclosed gifts to the justices in the millions of dollars range couldn’t therefore justify the need for a recusal.

Alternatively you could be honest and admit that the nature of these gifts being undisclosed coming from a person with inherent interest in almost every case is cause for major concern and probably ground for recusal from _every_ case. A Supreme Court justice should be extremely mindful of even the possible appearance or impression of unethical behavior as their unethical behavior serves to discredit the institution itself.

Why do you feel the need to come here and defend this plainly unethical behavior from justice thomas?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...

The actions of the government you support and the supposed “consensus” you cite are opposed.

* vote with your wallet; boycotts and divestments are tools ordinary people have to effect conglomerates. Ensure your retirement money is not invested with companies engaging with the political ideas you do not agree with

* protest; attending in person events shows leaders numbers and images that are harder to ignore than their consultants’ polling data.