Modern_medicine_isnt @ Modern_medicine_isnt @lemmy.world

Posts

22

Comments

1,324

Joined

2 yr. ago

So your answer is that the average person in socal should just be put in finacial ruin if a fire burns down their house. If insurance is super expensive they won't be able to sell it, because no one could afford the insurance. They can't afford it either, but can't move without selling it. Once thier house does burn down, and they have no where to live, they won't be able to work, and will eventually be poor enough for welfare and such. So we will be paying for them anyway. But at least your way they are destitue.

And it is easy to say it was predictable after it happened. I don't think anyone predicted this level of devastation in LA. Fires in the surrounding hills sure. But not through dense residential areas like that.

And given the motivation, engineers can build a house that can withstand just about anything.

What is the alternative that people are going to, and how is their moderation?

No it doesn't. Those people need to be essentially bailed out if/when their house is destroyed. Most of them had no idea what they were getting into when they bought it. And we bail out companies, so why not people. But that buy out should be to buy the land for a reasonable price, or if they want to rebuild, they will have to sink extra money of thier own into meeting the requirements of new buildings for that area. In some areas they may want to incentivize rebuilding to the new standard, in some they wouldn't. Insurance as it is now, only pays to rebuild such that it can burn down again. So even raising the price on that doesn't solve the problem. It will just end up with the cost of insurance being wrapped into the mortgage eventually.

Thats why i pointed at building codes. Require building that will survive the threat. Then people will have to pay more for them which discourages people from building in those areas at least.

I figure that and attractiveness will enable you to borrow any other ability you need.

I would think there is a priority order in his mind. Decentralized fact checking, centralized fact checking, no fact checking. His actions fit well with that. Also, I believe zuck wasn't using only one asset to do the checking. He was using multiple fact checking sources. So it was kinda decentralized. I would expect this guy would rather see the user choose the fact checking source for content they see.

A lot of things would work better if the states weren't so ideologically divided. Lol But yeah, relocation is rough. Moving people away from family and friends means removing them from the people they probably depend on. And that just leads to more people taking thier kids with them to vegas, lol.

Let me rephrase. If they refused to insure any house that was a high risk for one factor. That would be a very sizable chunk of the country. Even if they only refused to insure it for the thing it was high risk for, it would make unsurance on the house pointless. Flood zones and wildfire zones particularly are expending every year. Hurricane zones used to be ok to insure because hurricanes didn't hit too hard too often. But they are stronger and more frequent, so much of Florida has a very short list of insurers which will trend to zero in the near future. While I agree everyone should move out of florida because of the shitty politics, that isn't really practical.

Only problem is my kid sees the light early on and assumes I am already awake. Then he comes and puts a hand on my shoulder while leaning in with the light behind him. Not sure that one will make adulthood. Lol

They could cover a lot more if they didn't need to make billions in profit. But your general concern is valid. What stops people from building in extremely high risk places. The answer should be federal building standards. If a house is built in a high risk area, it must have mitigating features that protect it from the high risk, or it can't be built. Local building codes already do this sort of thing. So this is just an extension of something already done. Most people don't know which areas are high risk for what. So don't penalize them for getting duped. And in many cases the house wasn't in a high risk area when built. So there needs to be funding to upgrade those houses to reduce the risk. That should come from the industries that profitted on ignoring the effects of thier industry in exchange for great profits.

That probably sounds good in your head. But you are only thinking of fires. What if they just pick the highest risk factor for every house and refuse to cover that. Then what would be the point of the insurance. And if you consider all the houses that are a high risk for something... fire, hurricane, flooding, high winds, tornadoes, earthquakes... you aren't left with many houses.

The media everywhere knows that showing people who are on an extreme gets more views. So that is what you will see from outside. As for the people you have meet. The chill people don't travel as much.

One of those sunrise alarm clocks, going to bed more than 8 hours before it goes off, a neti pot or benadryl so I can breath while sleeping. Blackout shades, and an air filter that makes some soft white noise.

Not much. Ohio is covered in snow right now.

I think you are implying they could charge more in state taxes so the feds don't get the money. Sadly in the California housing market, that $10k limit makes it meaningless.

This is why insurance shouldn't be for profit.

That's an easy one. Because the government let this happen by not reigning in the corporate pollution it knew was happenig. All so the economy would grow and grow which is what gave you the money to pay those taxes. So the tax dollars you are giving the gov are the reason these people need to move.

How will AI learn without human posted questions and answers. Docs for most software are abysmal. In a few years, people dependent on AI to code will be in real trouble with anything new.

A lot of answers seem to skip over that people wouldn't know if the repeat is forever. So many people might try to figure out how to make it stop. Others might not want it to stop... that could get interesting.

Let's be honest. It's not that Mark is a facist or whatever. It's because the change is good for him personally, and he just doesn't care about others. As for why it is good for him... workers in texas are cheaper, and most of the people currently on the team in Cali will quit rather than move.