Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)KA
Posts
0
Comments
35
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It differes based on the sport. The NFL is the most "equal" between teams. It's nice because you don't have the same teams winning year after year. The worst teams get the best picks in the next draft, so theoretically they should get a boost (although some teams still manage to screw it up). In baseball, and to a lesser extent basketball, the "big market" cities tend to dominate the sport. Which sucks when you're rooting for a small market team that is always getting destroyed by the NY Yankees or the LA Dodgers.

  • "most Americans" don't live in a city that dense and certainly drive to the store for groceries. But when I say "to the store" it's not the same as what Europeans think. It's not a little corner store where you get your groceries for the day. It's a giant Walmart/Kroger where you load up for the whole week so you don't have to go as often.

  • I don't agree with your third point at all.

    I don't think I've met any Americans that use their ancestry as a sense of "self worth" in any meaningful amount. For the vast majority of people it's just a interesting quirk people like to share about their ancestry. Taking that and criticizing it because "last time we did it, nazism happened" is quite a stretch.

  • Your description isn't how it works in most places really. The "districts" aren't usually that far apart. It would be common to find single family homes close by a school, or an apartment building right next to an office building.

    Zoning is useful in scenarios like industrial vs residential buildings. You wouldn't want to have an apartment building next to a railroad hub for example. The railroad would be very loud/dirty, and industrial business would benefit more from being closer to the rail hub.

  • As I stated in the very first sentence: to rent it out.

    I suppose your response will be "but renting it out is bad! We should make that illegal because you're extracting wealth from the tenant!"

    Then I will say to you "fine, I suppose I will not build that house at all"

    This is how you get a take a housing shortage in the US and make it far, far worse.

  • Buying land for the purpose of building property is bad? I think any policy that discourages development of additional housing is probably not going to be great for house prices. Or if you're handing out houses in a lottery system, it won't be great for housing supply at least.

  • What if I build a house on a piece of land I own and want to rent it out?

    The second construction is completed I'm all of a sudden a scumbag for privatizing someone else's right to shelter? Even though it's a house I built on my land? Doesn't make much sense to me.

  • I have had this one time when I was very little. Around 6 or 7 years old or so, but I remember it very clearly. For me, it was like a gunshot went off right next to my head only a couple minutes after I fell asleep. I remember jolting awake and asking my brother and mother what it was, but they had no idea what I was talking about. Maybe some people have different experiences, but mine couldn't be mistaken for a UFO sound.

  • I don't understand how this relates to the problem. Yes 50 percent is greater than 33 percent, but that's not what the Monty hall problem is about. The point of the exercise is to show that when the game show host knowingly (and it is important to state that the host knows where the prize is) opens a door, he is giving the contestant 33 percent extra odds.