I keep hearing this, and it doesn't make sense. We don't have a london-sized tent city anywhere. But we have generations that can't afford to buy a home, and the rental market is brutal, but we have piles of london 'investment properties' sold offshore and then left empty as speculation (and other market distortions). We have enough houses, but we distribute them badly.
was talking about this with a friend who knows more. He did point out we need to replace old housing stock, which we also don't do, so just have cold, mouldy old houses. But that's not what's being talked about here.
I also had a twitter conv with a housing charity once, who agreed but pointed out that the financialization of property is hard to overturn, and it's easier to just advocate for more building. Problem I see here is that the new buildings will just be more stock for existing portfolios, and actual prices don't seem to reduce.
we don't have a london sized tent city, but we do have people in their 40s living with multiple other people, as rent is so expensive in most cities. why is rent so expensive that young people are having to live like students far past their early 20s? because there is not enough housing.
i myself am 29 and live with two other guys in london, our rent is collectively over £3k for a shoddy built-to-rent flat. looking at house prices in the uk, it's hard to think i'll ever own my own home.
Back in the day there was a smaller consultancy with awesome developers called LShift (mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_London_Tech_City). They worked out that an open source messaging thing would be useful, and created RabbitMQ (there were details about who, how it was funded internally, etc). That got sold to VMWare, and a bunch of people went with it, but LShift went on as before, happy, but always looking for another Rabbit. Didn't find one, was aquihired in the end.
Meanwhile, some of the Rabbit people formed Weave, looking for the killer business around the early container ecosystem (https://www.weave.works/oss/net/ was interesting, eksctl, flux, CNCF, lots of good things). But I guess they took a bite of the VC apple and sustainable technical contributions was no longer the goal.
I've huge respect for everyone I knew from Weave. Great people all. Best wishes and I know you'll land on your feet.
Just following up, it's also totally Smeagol-like to make people sign up before they can get any useful answers at Quora. True Gollum move, D'gelo. Thanks for showin' yer true colors!
Elon was once "in possession" (influential investor and part of the board) of OpenAI, but it was since taken from him and he is evidently bitter about it.
Probably because many of those increasingly read like "if we don’t stop this soon we’re all gonna die". The direr the reported consequences of human activities get, the more we think "this scientist is telling me how to live my life".
It’s like playing Russian roulette, and having all the fun ruined by some eagle eyed gun expert pointing out that actually, there’s a bullet in that gun. The risk comes from the bullet, but we’re still tempted to be annoyed at the expert instead.
Because it’s going to quickly go from we observed this which is a finding to
we project that the world is going to end unless we do X which is not a scientific finding but rather one of a multitude of opinions on the future which is why climate models are averaged because there is no consensus and even if there was science doesn’t work on consensus.
You can tell by the dramatic article that this is why the government doesn’t let people like her give its opinions because her opinion diverges from that of the government.
Besides, Humans != TheWorld. This planet is going to spin even if we--arguably the biggest issue this planet ever had--are gone. There is this old joke. Two planets meet and have a chat. "So, how are you?" "Well, not good." "Why?" "I have homosapien!" "Don't worry, this will pass."
So, no worries, the world is not going to end.
And if humans manage to ruin their living conditions so badly that we end up dying out, evolution has just made another important step. After all, it is not like we deserve to survive.
It's useful to realise that humanities yearly CO2 production is greater (by weight) anything else we make. by far.
So yes, if we don't stop producing industrial quantities of CO2, we'd need to plant about 1 USA sized forest/year to compensate (and keep it away from fire etc). Obviously Complete Nonsense.
Also a strawman argument. We need to stop producing industrial quantities of CO2. Then reforestation can help (a bit, perhaps).
