As far as I'm aware, the YIMBY "movement", or whatever you want to call it, is pretty squarely about housing development. It's not about saying yes to building anything and everything, but saying yes to new housing in particular.

For example, https://newyorkyimby.com/ is pretty much exclusively about housing.

I can maybe understand finding value in a machine-written novel if others also read it and enjoyed it, but having an LLM spit out a novel and reading it in isolation, that would be a complete waste of time to me.

Not providing loans for programs that will not provide the means for a student to repay them is the right thing to do, as those loans are a path for the exploitation of the student.

A better criteria would be, does the increase in salary that the degree program provides allow the student to pay off the cost of the degree in ten years (the length of the standard repayment plan).

It’s not really a big deal if a degree didn’t increase your earnings, provided your school was cheap. If your degree is worthless AND your school was expensive though, the results can be catastrophic.

The unethical part of the example that I was referring to is, you have the good thing built, but you are refusing to give it to some people, for bad reasons.

No, every time we do that, we do not give to the artist. But not giving is not the same as taking.

Your comment resonated with me because this doesn’t really happen when just taking ubers around town. I don’t really know what’s special about the drive from JFK — maybe the length? or the drivers being used to picking up tourists, who are more chatty? — that brings out the hustle chat and conspiracy theories, but I guess it’s a thing!