> I can’t imagine what it would look like today with a communal kitchen shared by strangers paying $231 inflation-adjusted dollars per month to be there.
Who in the world are you talking to?
For $230 a month the college students I know would sleep on a shared dirt floor of a cabin.
> This I only write because people sometimes get in to an obsessive social media cutting frenzy spending effort that would improve their lives much quicker spent fixing diet or exercise.
Not cutting social media would make these difficult-- e.g., limiting exercise to just stationary machines where they can watch Tiktok and reach their dopamine hit goals for the day.
> Not cutting social media would make these difficult-- e.g., limiting exercise to just stationary machines where they can watch Tiktok and reach their dopamine hit goals for the day.
If you force exercise to be boring, people will just avoid it more.
People can scroll their phones or watch YouTube on an exercise bike. It might make them exercise longer and make them more likely to go to the gym than to avoid it.
I knew someone who only allowed themself to scroll their social media platform of choice while working out. The result? A lot of time spent working out.
> If they dislike it, they can fork my project and go away.
I definitely agree with you here. Forking, almost by definition, means the "D" in BDFL is a joke. The author pretending that "D" is deadly serious is an incredibly counterproductive and passive-aggressive way to express their concern.
Still, the question remains-- if your project has more than a single developer, have you communicated to your project members who you think has the best knowledge and ability to take over after you're gone? If the only developer is you then the question is moot. Otherwise, it's false modesty to pretend that's none of your business.
> You can make more than that working at McDonald's near me, and nobody would claim that is a living wage.
Or he could scrimp and put four hard years towards making manager at McDonald's. If he gets it, then he can demand they match 44k a year (his passive income at that point) or he walks.
He could then try the same at Wendy's, and walk to retire on 64k a year.
That initial fixation on "position in the [social] hierarchy" in #1 can counterintuitively become self-defeating. Many people look at tricks of "climbing the social ladder" as potential signs of narcissism and instinctively steer clear. Unfortunately, that scoops up a lot of people like the author who just desperately wanted to break through an awkward adolescence!
Also counterintuitively, just giving up on that goal often leads to much more fruitful and lasting friendships. "Hi, I'm author. I'm abrasive and abrupt, excitable and sensitive. Interacting with me could be exhausting. Would you like to try? Please say yes or no."
Seriously, HN: if you saw one guy saying that to people, and another playing a ukelele at you as he "tells dramatics stories" about his life, which one would you choose to interact with?
Wow, you picked the one housing-related article I've read where supply cannot be the problem!
You could literally surround the PE mobile home park with new, available lots. But as the article states, it is prohibitively expensive for these current "mobile" home owners to move-- their abodes are no longer mobile in any practical sense. And, as the article also states, many have porches and other bespoke add-ons-- dismantling and rebuilding would add even more thousands.
This should be obvious on the face of it-- if those homes were truly mobile, like campers, the camper owners would just scoot (as camper owners do) when PE tried to jack up the rent.
I'll go further and speculate that a sizable portion of the owners are fixed income with very little savings. You could even offer free lots 500 feet down the road and some still couldn't take you up on it (at least without racking up some seriously predatory CC or other debt). No doubt these PE firms had a firm grasp on the owners income levels, home ages/prices, and all kinds of other data before they bought up the lots and jacked up the rents.
Unless your grand plan to flood the market with mobile home lots includes a "let's teach the users" campaign to tell everyone in the next generation to buy campers instead of mobile homes, adding supply won't help them, either.
Typically it's the land that appreciates, faster if it has a house or other permanent structure, though that does include mobile homes.
If the land is rented, the mobile home will often depreciate, much like a used car. Nobody wants to live in a mobile home with 1970's decor. So those owners are likely going to take a bath.
> Why is it that the 50 year old Pakistani man who just moved here and doesn't speak English seems to be doing so much better than "poor" Americans who complain online all the time.
Because it was an immigration policy that selected for that Pakistani gentleman to be in your general vicinity at that moment. But it was something more akin to Math.rand() that chose the American.
If your purpose were to post the same complaint about someone drawn at random from Pakistan, you could try using Math.rand() to pick (on) one of them, too.
Who in the world are you talking to?
For $230 a month the college students I know would sleep on a shared dirt floor of a cabin.
reply