Capitalism see labor as a cost, and though outsourcing, overseaing, and automation attempts to drive that cost to as close to zero as possible. The fundamental problem is that people derive great benefit and satisfaction from their labor, their participation in production, and the knowledge of a job well done. Capitalism, over a long time, will always deny people that satisfaction. Young people can feel that truth in their everyday. It's Capitalism's fundamental, and intrinsic flaw. Work matters, and it is not a cost, it is a benefit.
What's the best alternative to capitalism in your mind?
Capitalism is pretty good at making sure people are doing something actually useful to others, that's where a lot of the satisfaction of work lies in the first place.
Not all work is equally satisfying as well. Most kinds of work would make me miserable. Capitalism is great because you have a lot of wiggle room - you choose within the intersection of your abilities and what the world wants.
If your preferred work is something useless to society like digging random holes or whatever, you may be able to do that in a capitalist system as well if we implement some sort of basic income.
People derive satisfaction from their labor, but they also derive fatigue, frustration, and dismay from it. There is a reason why people generally demand a for doing non-hobby projects. This means it is, on balance, a cost.
Have you looked into the MGTOW community? You sound just like them. They are smart guys, but they get a lot of shit because they push back against those exact social expectations that you talk about.
This from the man, Lynn, who said that we'd be making houses the same way we make shoes. He's a techno carpet bagger. He takes the most current and promising technologies, from shoe makers, to car makers, and then rails at the building establishment for not taking that technology and his lead seriously. When in fact, his actual works are bonded kids toys. And that's the problem with these guys, they talk big game, but when it comes to implementation, they barely elicit a shrug.
Structural steel was adopted quickly once it was clear that it was superior to all other existing construction technologies. The same thing would be true with glue-this and glue-that, if it turned out the be true. It's not. It's the architectural equivalent of vapor-ware.
Sorry Herr Lynn, we are still waiting for your shoe houses.
2. They built the Panoramic in the time it took WeLive to do their interior improvements. And when they were working on it, it was just a skeleton crew. The whole time I was thinking ... how are they financing the building? This is insane.
3. WeLive has a main floor common space, where they've had two? events since they opened. Both were modestly attended, but certainly had a college dorm feel to it. Not anything anyone over 30 would be interested in.
4. There appears to be value-added services in the common area, a cafe, a juice bar, etc, but I hardly see it used.
5. They continue to putter around the building, putting a whole new set of scaffolding up, taking it down, putting it up again, doing some painting, taking the taping down, putting it up again, and I wonder ... what on earth are they doing? They had a year to get this right, what's the hold up.
6. Compared to the huge number of apartments going in across the street -- 1900? WeLive is a ghost town.
(ps. the Trinity has major problems going in to this as well. I see it as a huge bungle for the Planners. But I am waiting to see what the Market Street retail looks like. If it's anything like the Mission Street side, it'll keep that side of Market dead.)
So, in short, WeLive is some capital intensive problems, that a lot of smart people are trying to solve, just up the block and across the street, and nothing I see puts WeLive ahead of these guys.
Especially when landlords stop leasing to them at .5x, so that they can turn around and dormify the building and get 2x for it. Not with Panorama and Trinity right there.
> 4. There appears to be value-added services in the common area, a cafe, a juice bar, etc, but I hardly see it used.
Value added? Maybe, I guess. It's really just another way to drain more money from the tenants in the name of convenience. Dorm room too small for a coffee maker? Just pay $4 per cup in our handy cafe.
I wonder where the threshold is for people who would live in a situation like this. Is living in SF such a necessity? If you're consumed most of the day with your startup to begin with, how much of the city's culture are you really going to take in? Especially if you're in one of these dorms, where they drop a cafe and juice bar right in the building "so you never have to leave!"
I love the first video. The apartments are lovely, lots of light, a lot of thinking about the usability and comfort went into it. If I was single in my 20s I'd love to live in a place like that (as opposed to same dingy 800sqf with nasty wall-to-wall carpets in a generic apartment complex somewhere in middle America, which is what I actually did).
Super interesting video! I love seeing entrepreneurship flourish within regulatory constraints. There is so much innovation going on with those micro apartments and public spaces, it's really exciting.
Farther into the video, he shows the common areas and mentions some of the psychology that goes into the planning of the space.
He's also experimenting with the living space to figure out what's best while being as small as possible. The level of thought that goes into it is impressive.
Can Yahoo get its money back from its current CEO? Or did they really pay someone to run this ship aground?
At the time when they were looking, I wrote Jerry an open letter about what I thought could be done. Sure I'm a nobody, but none of the ideas were even, through the chances of good business, implemented. Instead there was a fancy rebranding, and a targeting of women's lifestyle channels. And now this.
I'm glad we have a competitive economy, or else I could imagine Yahoo becoming the service that sucked, but that everyone still used.
The ship has been grounded for a lot longer than the last 3 CEOs have been around. they should have scuttled it and sold it off for parts a very long time ago.
37% of what? equal what? did I miss the suggested number? I see that it's dependent on the number of people that you are considering, from 10 to 100, but that leaves a difference of between 4 and 40 people to date. How do we know how many people, total, we would date, when we are just starting?
I get the feeling that this article only has half the math.
As an aside, I've heard that the optimum number for this equation is in fact 12. So 12 is the 38%. But this article doesn't confirm that - as far as I can tell.
It probably depends on your starting age and how long before you really want to get married (women have biological restraints and unless you want a large age difference men do too), and how long you'd date before accurately rating.
12 is probably too high. That would mean you'd date over 30 people. People who are single their whole life don't seriously date that many people.
The article suggests 11 as the number of suitors (as an assumption, not conclusion). That's probably fair, maybe even too high.
So you should settle for the best partner (of any previous) after number 4. That could be 5 but it could also be 6 or 10.
