R3qn65's recent activity
-
Comment on Food: Your personal year in review for 2025 in ~food
-
Comment on What are some of your "life hacks" you use regularly? in ~talk
-
Comment on Food: Your personal year in review for 2025 in ~food
R3qn65 Link ParentI bet that was a cool show. How are they live?My buddy and I were in town to see Halestorm and Lindsey Stirling.
I bet that was a cool show. How are they live?
-
Comment on Hobson v. Hansen and the decline of DC schools in ~humanities.history
R3qn65 Link ParentNo, I mean that while the author's history is clearly terrible, this was not obviously problematic material, so "what the actual fuck, where do you keep finding this shit" seems like an...No, I mean that while the author's history is clearly terrible, this was not obviously problematic material, so "what the actual fuck, where do you keep finding this shit" seems like an overreaction since without knowing the author's background you wouldn't know there was an issue.
this particular interjection and question, which while profane is not a personal attack on the OP.
Look, all I'm saying is that if someone said "what the actual fuck, [my name], where do you keep finding this shit" to me in real life, my hackles would go up.
-
Comment on Hobson v. Hansen and the decline of DC schools in ~humanities.history
R3qn65 Link ParentThis seems uncalled for. I don't know if there's a history or what, but the link is from educationprogress.org. That doesn't scream "sketchy domain" to me.What the actual fuck, @skybrian!... Where do you keep finding this shit?
This seems uncalled for. I don't know if there's a history or what, but the link is from educationprogress.org. That doesn't scream "sketchy domain" to me.
-
Comment on The populist revolt against cognitive elites in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentI know, but based on that definition New York City doesn't have any food deserts in it, which obviously isn't true or useful....You're trying to redefine "food desert" when lack of access to a supermarket/large grocery store is key to the USDA definition.
I know, but based on that definition New York City doesn't have any food deserts in it, which obviously isn't true or useful.
I guess more broadly I would say that I would appreciate if you assumed good intent on my part. I am trying to understand this problem, not blowing it off by saying "who cares."
-
Comment on The populist revolt against cognitive elites in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentIn the short term, sure. But again, what's the long term plan? I assume it's not for these areas to remain food deserts forever? Moreover, in NYC "food desert" is a very relative term. It's more...In the short term, sure. But again, what's the long term plan? I assume it's not for these areas to remain food deserts forever?
Moreover, in NYC "food desert" is a very relative term. It's more like "cheap/healthy food desert." Obviously I'm not saying that's not a problem that needs to be fixed, but there are actual business being competed against.
-
Comment on The populist revolt against cognitive elites in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentIn principle, I completely agree. (That's why I support the food deserts part of the plan more.) However, I think we need to be very cautious about the details of the plan and the consequences. As...If the stores exist and make food accessible in food deserts, but it operates at a loss, that's just a worthwhile social service being funded by taxes, one of many.
In principle, I completely agree. (That's why I support the food deserts part of the plan more.) However, I think we need to be very cautious about the details of the plan and the consequences.
As I linked above, many (not all! Some have succeeded!) state-owned grocery stores eventually folded, even those that were never attempting to be profitable. In many of these cases they ended up losing even more money than expected and eventually became such an albatross that despite the political good will, it just didn't make sense to keep them open anymore. The stores don't need to be profitable, but I think it's a mistake to write off all concerns about revenue vs. cost. The more money these stores lose, the more challenges they're going to get from across the city, right?
Can you imagine the electoral risk to a future mayor who tried to shutter them?
Honestly, I think this is more of a negative than a positive. The reason for this is unintuitive, but touched on what I meant about consequences: what's the long-term plan? Let's take a food desert in the Bronx. The city opens a grocery store there. The best-case scenario is that the store is either profitable or doesn't run much of a loss -- not to save the taxpayer money (I agree with you that this is basically a social service), but because the farther in the red a state store has to run, the more impossible it is for regular commercial business to open in that area. Every negative percentage point of margin is another percentage point that a regular store would have to make up somewhere to compete. Otherwise, you've effectively made it impossible for regular stores to open, because they have to compete against a store that can run at a loss indefinitely. I know that the obvious first thought is "so what?" but that has a whole host of follow-on implications that we should be very cautious of.
It's not that there's no world where this isn't still worth doing. As a society we make all kinds of tradeoffs because we deem the social benefits are worth it. I just think democratic socialists should be more epistemically humble when building systems that make it impossible for the market to compete.
-
Comment on The populist revolt against cognitive elites in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentI understand that people say this all the time, but if you look at the actual data, it's not true. Big companies definitely try to minimize their tax burden - no question about that - but that...Big companies are experts at having negative or zero profits on paper to avoid taxes.
I understand that people say this all the time, but if you look at the actual data, it's not true. Big companies definitely try to minimize their tax burden - no question about that - but that doesn't mean that they avoid taxes.
Last year:
NVIDIA paid 17 billion in taxes.Apple paid 20 billion.
Alphabet paid ~20 billion.
Microsoft paid ~19.
Amazon paid ~12.
-
Comment on The populist revolt against cognitive elites in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentOkay, fair, but what’s the counterargument as to why they aren’t interested in making money in this one specific location? Fair enough; the track record of explicitly-government owned stores is...We don't know that big chains couldn't make it work, we only know they aren't doing it.
Okay, fair, but what’s the counterargument as to why they aren’t interested in making money in this one specific location?
Your link doesn't talk about government-owned stores, only ones that were subsidized and then fell prey to the lack of negotiating power I already discussed.
Fair enough; the track record of explicitly-government owned stores is slightly better but still not great. Most of these are local, yes, but to my earlier point 5 city-owned stores (in the case of NYC) is hardly sufficient to secure significant bargaining power.
-
Comment on The populist revolt against cognitive elites in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentI should note that I’m far more in favor of the “food deserts” part of the plan than the “make groceries cheaper everywhere part of the plan.” Even so - respectfully - what you wrote isn’t the...I should note that I’m far more in favor of the “food deserts” part of the plan than the “make groceries cheaper everywhere part of the plan.”
Even so - respectfully - what you wrote isn’t the details, it’s the elevator pitch. The highest possible level overview. And while several of your initial points are true (major chains have supply cost advantages; sometimes they even illegally collude), those points don’t support the rest of your argument. In some sense, they actually undermine it: if major chains, for which the deck is stacked in every conceivable way, can’t make it work, we should be very skeptical that the government can. I completely recognize that the government doesn’t need to make a profit, but margins on grocery stores are usually pretty tight in the first place, so “not needing to be profitable” isn’t as big of an advantage as it initially seems to be. This is especially true since New York City has, for years, offered substantial tax breaks to businesses willing to open in food deserts, so even that won’t be a government advantage.
And in a lot of ways, being the government comes with substantial disadvantages:
NYC would be a larger customer and have better negotiating power than an independent grocer
Without putting too fine a point on it, do we generally think of the government as an effective negotiator? Securing the lowest possible price for inputs? Even in the (IMO, fantastical) scenario in which NYC both bargains as effectively as, say, Wal-Mart and opens hundreds of stores, that still would pale in comparison to Wal-Mart’s size.
Ultimately the track record of government-owned grocery stores is simply not great.
-
Comment on The populist revolt against cognitive elites in ~society
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentI don't think your facts are entirely wrong, but they are a little bit wrong. Per Mamdani, But his spokesperson has also said stuff like So yeah, the issue is quite confused. It's not really clear...I don't think your facts are entirely wrong, but they are a little bit wrong.
We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores, whose mission is lower prices, not price gouging.
But his spokesperson has also said stuff like
We can’t keep ignoring a crisis that’s making the city unlivable for working families. Zohran Mamdani has a clear plan: build grocery stores in food deserts that guarantee lower prices so every New Yorker can put affordable, healthy food on the table.
So yeah, the issue is quite confused. It's not really clear what the link is between food deserts and price gouging; usually those have very different root causes.
Personally, I like Mamdani; if I was a resident of NYC, I would've voted for him. But the grocery store plan doesn't make much sense. It is almost archetypical of left-wing populism in that it's a good sound byte, briefs well, easy to campaign on, but falls apart on the details.
-
Comment on The San Francisco Bay Area shortage of dental hygienists in ~health
R3qn65 Link ParentI'm certain that this is true in some offices, but it doesn't make much sense for offices desperately trying to hire new hygenicists for the business to remain viable. (And honestly doesn't really...Since there's such a huge market demand, the "part time" status (for a significant percentage at least) is likely a deliberate policy by the dental office to avoid having to pay benefits. There are so many jobs that just ever so coincidentally work out to 34 hours per week :/
I'm certain that this is true in some offices, but it doesn't make much sense for offices desperately trying to hire new hygenicists for the business to remain viable. (And honestly doesn't really make sense in a market for which there's a demand for hygienicists.) For example, one dentist was quoted as saying that he's started having to try to hire assistant dentists to do hygiene work. There's just no way that would be the choice over offering full-time hours and benefits to a hygenicist.
The 34 hours a week thing is more for like fast food jobs where the supply of workers outstrips the demand.
-
Comment on Firewood banks aren’t inspiring. They’re a sign of collapse. in ~finance
R3qn65 Link ParentI had no idea that was a thing! Are you sure the New Republic is doing that, though? It's a reasonably reputable publication and it seems too legitimate for that sort of random link spamming....I had no idea that was a thing! Are you sure the New Republic is doing that, though? It's a reasonably reputable publication and it seems too legitimate for that sort of random link spamming.
Edit: for what it's worth, your article is about internal linking, and the links I pointed out are external.
-
Comment on These travel influencers don’t want freebies. They’re AI. in ~travel
R3qn65 Link ParentI think ultimately it almost doesn't matter, because it's simply so cheap to produce this sort of (fake) content. If you lose someone's trust - if you lose almost everyone's trust - who cares?...I think ultimately it almost doesn't matter, because it's simply so cheap to produce this sort of (fake) content. If you lose someone's trust - if you lose almost everyone's trust - who cares? Just spin up another account.
Similarly, it's hard to gain followers, but launch 10,000 bots and one of them is almost guaranteed to take off.
-
Comment on Firewood banks aren’t inspiring. They’re a sign of collapse. in ~finance
R3qn65 Link ParentIn that article's defense, the study didn't actually explore rural vs urban at all, it was purely about socioeconomic strata. (Which makes it even worse as a supporting citation, of course.) But...In that article's defense, the study didn't actually explore rural vs urban at all, it was purely about socioeconomic strata. (Which makes it even worse as a supporting citation, of course.)
But yeah, you're right. I skimmed the original study (which was cited in The Conversation, which was then cited by Government.com, which was then cited by the New Republic piece in the OP, because the entire Internet is now just reactions to reactions and journalism is almost dead), and the study authors explicitly called out that to create new policies solving the disparity in response time would almost certainly result in a longer net time-to-return-of-service overall. Instead, they supported the battery backup type thing you mentioned!
-
Comment on Firewood banks aren’t inspiring. They’re a sign of collapse. in ~finance
R3qn65 (edited )LinkI was pretty annoyed by several aspects of this article. I think my biggest issue is that the evidence it's citing is quite overwrought. Here's an example: But if you click on the "power goes out"...I was pretty annoyed by several aspects of this article. I think my biggest issue is that the evidence it's citing is quite overwrought. Here's an example:
Rural families don’t get to pretend. They know exactly what it means when the power goes out for the third time in a month and the utility company shrugs because the profit isn’t there to fix it.
But if you click on the "power goes out" link, here's the title and first sentence:
Data from over 15 million consumers in 588 counties across the nation reveal that poorer communities waited an average of 170 minutes more for power to be restored, though sometimes it took much longer. Electricity is essential to just about everyone – rich and poor, old and young. Yet, when severe storms strike, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities often wait longest to recover.
It's not about rural communities losing power, it's about how it takes poorer communities an average of 170 minutes longer to get power back after storms (hurricanes specifically). And the source goes on to provide an explanation:
One likely reason for this disparity is written into utilities’ standard storm recovery policies. Often, these polices prioritize critical infrastructure first when restoring power after an outage, then large commercial and industrial customers. They next seek to recover as many households as they can as quickly as possible.
While this approach may seem procedurally fair, these recovery routines appear to have an unintended effect of often making vulnerable communities wait longer for electricity to be restored. One reason may be that these communities are farther from critical infrastructure, or they may be predominantly in older neighborhoods where power infrastructure requires more significant repairs.
...
Then if you click the link "the profit," here's the main point:
This week, PG&E gave as short as a few hours’ notice in some areas as they readied for a “Public Safety Power Shutoff” that could last up to 5 days. On Wednesday morning, darkness began to descend on 513,000 PG&E customers in Northern California. The power outage, according to PG&E, is a preventative measure in order to address safety issues during fire season, in which electricity is often a culprit. In the San Francisco Bay area and in and around the Sacramento Valley and foothills, the National Weather Service has issued a Red Flag Warning — the most severe of its kind — for weather conditions that can fuel an intense wildfire.
A second batch of 234,000 residents, including in the San Francisco East Bay, is expected to lose power during a second phase of shutoffs this evening around 8 pm. PG&E wildfire safety expert Sumeet Singh said the decision to cut electricity to customers in 34 California counties is “a last resort.” Some customers could be without power for five days, as every inch of the power lines have to be deemed as safe before electricity is restored.
(The argument is basically that they should've invested more beforehand so they wouldn't need to do this.)
The whole article is like this, and it's journalistic malpractice. If firewood banks were a sign of collapse, you shouldn't need to rely on bait-and-switches like this to make your point.
-
Comment on Rapid Support Forces massacres left Sudanese city ‘a slaughterhouse’, satellite images show in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentWhat happens to aid in conflict zones like this is its own horror story that I won't sadden you with :/What happens to aid in conflict zones like this is its own horror story that I won't sadden you with :/
-
Comment on Rapid Support Forces massacres left Sudanese city ‘a slaughterhouse’, satellite images show in ~society
R3qn65 Link ParentIt's fascinating to see someone else with UN experience on this site. I agree with most of what you're saying, though I disagree here - which might be the most fundamental question, I suppose. The...It's fascinating to see someone else with UN experience on this site.
People are doing something, they just aren't getting the help, equipment, and personnel they need,
I agree with most of what you're saying, though I disagree here - which might be the most fundamental question, I suppose. The bravery of the troops from many TCCs notwithstanding, I don't think that any amount of equipment and personnel would help the various peacekeeping missions resolve these conflicts. The UN doesn't have an offensive mandate (which is intentional, obviously) and without that the best they can do is what they do do - namely try to keep small parts of these countries from getting worse.
But they're beholden to the nominal government of the host country and that's kind of that. I mean, look how many missions have been ejected from the countries they were stabilizing in the last decade alone.
-
Comment on Rapid Support Forces massacres left Sudanese city ‘a slaughterhouse’, satellite images show in ~society
R3qn65 (edited )Link ParentThere are no stupid questions! The Sudan conflict isn't being fought with cruise missiles and stealth fighters, it's being fought with rifles and pickup trucks. So unfortunately there are no...Nothing fancy that they could then become retaliating force but just .... Slightly better gear?
There are no stupid questions!
The Sudan conflict isn't being fought with cruise missiles and stealth fighters, it's being fought with rifles and pickup trucks. So unfortunately there are no weapons that could be used for self defense but not retaliation. The Rwandan genocide was carried out, in large part, with machetes and farm tools. :(
That rules -- not surprised re: halestorm of course, but a little (pleasantly) surprised to hear that Stirling can put on a live show as good as her videos.
Glad you got to see it!