It's a "shortage" in the normal colloquial use of the term because the quantity of housing demanded exceeds the quantity supplied relative to some spectrum of desired prices. "There's no shortage if you have $2 million!" is hardly reassuring. I think you're misapplying the jargon found in economics textbooks. On that definition, the recent spike in rice prices which will lead to millions of people starving is not a "shortage" because prices were allowed to rise. Sure, but that's silly. What people normally mean by "rice shortage" is "there's not enough rice". It's not enough precisely because prices are too high.
If you like, call it a "supply-demand imbalance" or an "affordability crisis", but it doesn't change anything. The point is, supply is so low that it's causing a lot of human misery. In normal English, that's called a "shortage", because there's not enough of it.
At this point, I only keep Chrome around for the odd website that only works on Chrome. It's astonishing how quickly Google is burning through good will lately.
Yes, I was going to comment the same thing! By saying “there is no housing crisis“, it implies that there is less of a problem, not more of one. It’s provocative, but misleading. At the very least, the title should’ve been changed to say “It’s not a housing crisis, but a broken housing system“.
But honestly, is that even a useful point to make at length? Everyone knows it’s broken beyond just the short term!
Mastodonians, Kbingers, and Fedizens are all superb. I’m not a fan of “feds” because it has another pretty common usage. I feel like whatever term is chosen should unambiguously evoke the fediverse.
Also in practice the sentences come out a bit unclear to me. “The fed that posted this clearly knew their stuff.” “Some feds just like to stir things up.”
Edit: that said, I think that’s a really good point about the need for a platform neutral term.
This is why I said fewer cars, not no cars. Most people obviously do not drive 160 miles a day. With better infrastructure and public transportation, a 2 car family might go down to 1 car, or replace half of their car trips with other modalities, etc.
I’m not a lawyer either, so your guess is as good as mine. From where I’m sitting, it seems to me that there is ample evidence, including internal communication and the activities of the “diversion” team, that this was NOT an engineering decision. When the problem was revealed, there was no attempt to correct it. I personally don’t see how this is so hard to argue when it is so blatant.
Yes exactly. One could do mental gymnastics to try to defend this, but the balance of evidence and past decisions by Musk makes it obvious that this is far from innocent. This is theft by misrepresentation.
It’s not right though. Tesla was uniquely inaccurate. This Ars Technica article I read a few days ago goes into more detail. No other manufacturer has such inaccurate range estimates. In fact, most exceed their estimates.
Tesla is the only company with such incorrect range estimates. There is now tons of evidence, such as internal communication, indicating that this was intentional lying. If they win, the payout will be to all affected, not just to those filing suit.
Outside of the US and Canada, electric bikes look to be the future instead of mainly electric cars. E-bikes are not just massively more environmentally friendly, they’re also radically reshaping city design to be more livable. I hope the future isn’t just a different kind of car. I hope, for the sake of the environment and society, it’s a world with fewer cars.
All the best run states, with the highest education, best health, lowest crime, highest wages and strongest economies, are progressive. Inclusivity and taking care of the disadvantaged isn’t just a moral good. It makes us all better off when we give everyone a fair chance. This doctor is one example.
New Orleans used to be the 3rd largest city in the US and the 4th busiest port in the world. There’s no reason that Louisiana couldn’t have been as rich and prosperous as California or New York. But years of conservative policies make you poor.
On The Media is the best news podcast. It reports on how stories are being reported, hence “on the media”, and in the process ends up being the most informative and deep reporting available. Journalists and academics love it, it’s a legendarily good show that started on NPR radio.
ah yes, the 0.3 meters difference in car length makes this completely "dishonest". Throw the whole thing out because they used 4.5 instead of 4.2.
I don't even get your point about car following distance. A line of totally immobile cars bumper to bumper is illustrative of nothing. Using the ideal scenario for car storage is hardly "more honest". I have no idea what is motivating all this weird nitpicking.
It's a "shortage" in the normal colloquial use of the term because the quantity of housing demanded exceeds the quantity supplied relative to some spectrum of desired prices. "There's no shortage if you have $2 million!" is hardly reassuring. I think you're misapplying the jargon found in economics textbooks. On that definition, the recent spike in rice prices which will lead to millions of people starving is not a "shortage" because prices were allowed to rise. Sure, but that's silly. What people normally mean by "rice shortage" is "there's not enough rice". It's not enough precisely because prices are too high.
If you like, call it a "supply-demand imbalance" or an "affordability crisis", but it doesn't change anything. The point is, supply is so low that it's causing a lot of human misery. In normal English, that's called a "shortage", because there's not enough of it.