6
points
civeng
Joined 383 karma
- I appreciate the acknowledgement ofthe 'No True Scotsman' trap. It is easy to define a side by its ideals (e.g., 'The Left is for the poor'), but the reality is that both sides muck it up the moment they take control.
Neither side actually supports the poor because both are funded by and literally are the wealthy masters. The evidence is in the trends/facts that for almost 50 years the wealth gap has only widened, regardless of who is in charge. At some point, we have to accept that the 'which side is right' argument is false.
- I understand your point that a typical US citizen has options where they work.
My point is when all options include wage slavery it's not an actual option. That's it, a false dichotomy.
And that is what the OP is about. It's exploring a fundamentally different system which I understand is scary.
- This is part of the false dichotomy you are not understanding. It's not actually a valid choice if there are no options. And that is what this is actually about, understanding how we have no good options, and what to do about it. I recommend start digging in and we all question or own understanding and acceptance of the system. Is it actually working with even a simple majority in the best position we can be?
Currently employing 130 wage slaves and unduly profiting from their margins, and not satisfied with the overall system at all.
- 1 point
- Agreed. You got a bad batch perhaps.
When CA first required high efficacy lighting in kitchens via Title 24 in 2010, it was a train wreck, there were no good options and it got a bad name. Slowly they were required throughout new construction in tightening requirements every three years. Then technology caught up and the quality, flexibility, color and lumen options have far exceeded incandescent bulbs. Now people are doing things never imagined (as discussed somewhat awkwardly in the article) with LEDs spurred in part by legislation that pushed the technology from behind. Perhaps one of the few times technology didn't create the product and market. Legislation has created the market, and technology responded. Doesn't usually work out that way...
Now however, the new control requirements are ridiculous and add far more cost than will ever be recouped. Most likely since these requirements were planned back when California used 90 percent more electricity for lighting, it seems rather useless especially in the face of our unaffordable housing. Hopefully I am wrong there but it seems we went a bit too far.
- I am squarely in the business and there are successful and failed startups everywhere. It is dynamic, challenging but there is defintely no shortage of people succeeding. Perhaps the startups just dont have the buzz or respect?
Many successful ones are already mentioned, like Procore for example. There are many more focusing in the data collection and modeling space including BIM. For example, there are still tremendous opportunities solving little problems with data collection and selling to Trimble. Or automating tasks in software and selling to Autodesk. Or add CAD like tools to a PDF reader and sell that for a hundred million (BlueBeam). The list is pretty endless, no shortage there. I believe the shortage is perhaps the humble humans that understand construction thoroughly AND understand technology to a level that would allows a bridge between the two to be constructed.
My favorite failed unicorn startup in this space that I believe demonstrates the difficulty of construction is Katerra. I personally dealt with them as a vendor and immediately knew they would fail even before Softbank gave them a billion dollars. The hubris was off the charts. A bunch of tech people that tried to hire people in the business but just couldn't understand the scale of difficulties or challenges. I must admit they generated a fair amount of schadenfreude in me.
- 3 points
- 100% they get it because we talk about it all the time, however it doesnt mean they agree but I would say they understand. There is pushback as age increases and social pressure DOES increase as well, this is why we think the transition is key. Our 15 y old son just drew up a contract in order to get a smart phone with things like a list of apps he would install, acknowledgement that we "own" his device, agreement that it will not be in his room. We will try to strike a balance between trust and micromanging, hopefully closer to the trust side of the spectrum! We expect him to fail a few times and thats ok, its all part of learning to use it responsibly by the time he turns 18.
This is a much larger issue than just a phone. Awareness of the great damage that can be caused by social media of all forms is just the first step.
- Great question, and perhaps there is something better out there now since the popularity is rising. We researched thoroughly 3 years ago and at that time they had the best mix of features that fit our needs. Many dumb phones still have cameras and access to games which are both a non starter for our kids. Lightphones have no direct access to internet, but have calendaring which syncs to google, music, podcasts, and turn by turn directions. They are also hard to type on which we view as a feature that makes your time texting "count". We believe the e-ink display reduces the "pull" of the screen to our kids eyeballs.
There is also an element of the design and uniqueness of a ligthphone that starts conversations when people see it. Our son actually brags about his lightphone to peers and other adults, it is not an embarrasment which we believe is an intagible benefit.
- OP here. Parent of 3, ages 12, 15 and 18 navigating this issue irl. Although I believe good parents aren't super rigid on any issue, I feel pretty strongly on this one. It's the parents responsibility and it's hard since it requires your good example. No phone, age 0 to 10-12, to the Lightphone (absolutely love this product) age 13 to 16-18, to a smart phone. I believe the progression is pushed off as long as possible and allows for a manageable transition to responsible use of a necessary evil. To restrictive and your kid goes off the rails at 18 or earlier. Too permissive...pretty obvious what happens.
- 427 points
- Agree! The wet dry cycle at some point seems almost certain it would cause delamination. I'm surprised those failed bridges aren't more protected, it does seems risky, it seems they should be kept out of direct weather. Also agree glulams dont have a 100+ year track record, but it's getting there. They solve so many other issues such as efficient utilization of low grade and sustainable wood...so count me a cautious but excited proponent.
Good story about the Kauri Pine, that looks like a pretty cool tree!
- 7 points
- 1 point
- 6 points
It’s a well-documented economic concept. You can find plenty on it if you're actually curious about the perspective. And understanding it thoroughly is a strong prerequisite to seriously engaging with other people with intent to learn. It's work you need do yourself.