Ah, hm… I guess that makes sense. Bringing people to the office raises the value of surrounding retail, which in turn raises the value of the office. Thanks, that explanation clears it up.
Buying something to create artificial demand usually isn’t a good investment strategy. A “pump-and-dump” can work if you can set off a buying frenzy and sell before it wears off, but it’s not a long-term strategy.
Besides, if that was the plan, leaving the buildings vacant would be just as effective as using them.
Ok, so it’s about responding to local government incentives? I feel like that’s an important piece of the puzzle that’s overlooked when people say it’s about real estate prices.
I see, so the idea is that they’re responding to external pressure from governments and financial institutions? I guess I could see that, though it shouldn’t be hard to prove by pointing to specific policies and loan conditions.
But also, some of these companies own those buildings. If they’re not in use, their value in the market drops.
How does that work? Why would a buyer care if the seller was using the building? If anything, I would think using them would depreciate their value due to wear and tear.
Yeah, I’ve been having the same issue. It clears the page after a BRIEF period of inactivity.
Here I thought I was doing OpenAI a favor by keeping garbage out of their training data…
This comic is still around? I haven’t thought of it in years!
Henry George wrote about this extensively. The solution is a tax on all land at just under 100% of it’s rental value. That allows landlords to profit from the structures they build and maintain, but not from the land itself. It disincentivizes real estate speculation, lowering the cost of land and housing and improving accessibility to people who use it productively.
They’re written differently, but pronounced the same.
As an uninvolved party, after reading the thread, I understand that you feel frustrated and misunderstood. But I’m sorry to say that I feel like the failure of reading comprehension was on your part more than theirs.
It seems like the majority of people who responded to you argued that there are not two evils, but two parts to the same whole evil.
No one, that I saw, claimed you were saying that the Democrats were not evil. But the disagreement was that you see the Republicans and Democrats as two evils, while your opponents see them as one.
Whether or not you agree, that seems like a logically coherent belief to hold.
Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.
If you redirect the trolley, you’re not trying to kill the man on the other track. You’re trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there’s always the possibility he’ll escape on his own.
Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there’s culpability that doesn’t exist in the trolley scenario.
In one case you’re accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you’re pursuing it as a necessary step.
Am I the only one who’s having trouble processing the fact that Leela and Nibbler casually murdered someone early in the episode? I mean Futurama has always shown a lot of dark or mean humor, but that really threw me. Especially when they followed it up with such a sentimental story. I don’t like it when shows try to mix the two. Either I’m watching the show with the mindset that nothing matters, or I’m getting invested in the characters and their arcs. I don’t know about other people, but I can’t do both at once.
Also not a psychologist, but I would say that’s only true if the fear keeps them from enjoying life
As adults, we design our living spaces to be comfortable to us. We don’t intentionally make them scary so we can overcome.
I vaguely remember seeing a news article about something like that. I think it was a game where killing enemies caused files to be deleted from your computer. It was portrayed as some kind of artistic statement about digital possessions or something.
Someone in the forum where it was being discussed sarcastically said they developed a live action version called “playing baseball inside.”
What about the Xindi?
Yes. If I understand correctly, it’s because the eggs are washed, which strips them of their natural protective coating and causes them to require refrigeration.
Fair. I didn’t understand what OP was getting at, so I took them literally. It seemed strange to ignore that white people in the early 20th loved depictions of smiling black people in servant roles.
As for ads targeted at black consumers… now I’m curious. I know there were newspapers targeted at black readers. I wonder if they had ads.