San Francisco considering ban ...


  • mod

    On robots?


  • :belt_onion:

    I'm considering a ban on San Francisco.



  • This is also interesting considering the YIMBY movement there. As in, an alternative to making it easier for proles to live in / near SF, since you wouldn't need them for this sort of work.

    But it wouldn't be SF if they didn't oppose practical solutions to problems.


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    YIMBY

    Tip to the people running that website: EXPLAIN WHAT YIMBY ACTUALLY MEANS :tangerine:



  • @RaceProUK apparently it's the opposite of NIMBY.

    Seemed obvious enough once I Googled it, but it fell into that "I don't recognize it, but I feel like I should recognize it" grey area until then.



  • @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    This is also interesting considering the YIMBY movement there.

    The site:

    We should build more housing in every neighborhood — especially high-income neighborhoods.

    The people most hurt by a housing shortage are those with the least means.

    :confused:



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    This is also interesting considering the YIMBY movement there.

    The site:

    We should build more housing in every neighborhood — especially high-income neighborhoods.

    The people most hurt by a housing shortage are those with the least means.

    :confused:

    Part of the issue is that high income people are driving out lower income people. High income people like to live in nice areas. They want to build lots of housing there instead of building up low income areas (gentrification!) and making them nice and unaffordable to lower income people.

    Basically, the shortage of housing in and around SF keeps pushing people out farther and farther.



  • “If hit by a car, they also have the potential of becoming a deadly projectile,”

    ... So can a delivery cart pushed by a human?

    Delivery vans are more than making up the difference, and now account for nearly a fifth of all traffic in the capital.

    Obviously you should tax delivery cars more. They use the road more, and are heavier, thus damaging the road more. Think of it like the internet. If I was using more traffic than anyone else, someone could charge me to repair and increase bandwidth. Wait... no they can't. That'd be just like that ISP tried to charge Netflix more.



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Obviously you should tax delivery cars more.

    TAX EVERYTHING



  • @boomzilla

    Oh it gets better....

    Starship believes that it will eventually be able to offer local delivery for around $1 (78p) but admits that it is some way from that price. That is because today’s robots still need humans, earning at least the minimum wage, to remotely control them at tricky points, such as crossings and traffic lights.

    This article is a goldmine for conservatives.

    "We want $15!"
    "Don't worry, we're improving the robot technology so we can fire all of you. We would keep you if we could pay less than minimum wage."



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @boomzilla

    Oh it gets better....

    Starship believes that it will eventually be able to offer local delivery for around $1 (78p) but admits that it is some way from that price. That is because today’s robots still need humans, earning at least the minimum wage, to remotely control them at tricky points, such as crossings and traffic lights.

    This article is a goldmine for conservatives.

    "We want $15!"
    "Don't worry, we're improving the robot technology so we can fire all of you. We would keep you if we could pay less than minimum wage and less until we don't need you anymore ."

    FTFY



  • @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    TAX EVERYTHING

    :maple_leaf: Welcome to Canada !



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @boomzilla

    Oh it gets better....

    Starship believes that it will eventually be able to offer local delivery for around $1 (78p) but admits that it is some way from that price. That is because today’s robots still need humans, earning at least the minimum wage, to remotely control them at tricky points, such as crossings and traffic lights.

    This article is a goldmine for conservatives.

    "We want $15!"
    "Don't worry, we're improving the robot technology so we can fire all of you. We would keep you if we could pay less than minimum wage."

    No... it's okay. We'll just ban robots. Or did you miss this particular gem:

    He also worries that many delivery jobs would disappear.



  • @Rhywden

    When I mentioned that coal miners have every right to be happy with Trump's attempt to bring coal jobs back, several people on this forum made it a point to me that it wasn't government regulation and that coal as an industry was dying and coal miners shouldn't expect to get their jobs back.

    Why are delivery jobs any different?


  • SockDev

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Why are delivery jobs any different?

    Because the delivery 'industry' is only going to get bigger?



  • @RaceProUK said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Because the delivery 'industry' is only going to get bigger?

    Clever... I have one of those in my pants, too.



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Think of it like the internet. If I was using more traffic than anyone else, someone could charge me to repair and increase bandwidth.

    So you're saying ISPs could charge for bandwidth. What a novel idea.



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    "Don't worry, we're improving the robot technology so we can fire all of you. We would keep you if we could pay less than minimum wage."

    Minimum wage is clearly and directly incentivizing progress! What more do you want?



  • @anonymous234 said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    "Don't worry, we're improving the robot technology so we can fire all of you. We would keep you if we could pay less than minimum wage."

    Minimum wage is clearly and directly incentivizing progress! What more do you want?

    Less artificially inventivized "progress."



  • @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    This is also interesting considering the YIMBY movement there.

    The site:

    We should build more housing in every neighborhood — especially high-income neighborhoods.

    The people most hurt by a housing shortage are those with the least means.

    :confused:

    Part of the issue is that high income people are driving out lower income people. High income people like to live in nice areas. They want to build lots of housing there instead of building up low income areas (gentrification!) and making them nice and unaffordable to lower income people.

    Basically, the shortage of housing in and around SF keeps pushing people out farther and farther.

    I've heard anecdotes about $200k down payments followed by $4k monthly mortgages in that part of the world. It's one of a few reasons why I decided against moving back out there.

    Of course, one huge problem not unique to that area is that the builders are asshats and firmly believe that the best way to solve the housing crisis is by building more $500k+ townhomes. One wonders whether these fuckers ever thought for a moment that 1) this is outside the grasp of most Americans, 2) those who can afford that sum might have financial goals outside of homeownership, or 3) that price range includes a lot of resale single-family homes with some land.



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @boomzilla

    Oh it gets better....

    Starship believes that it will eventually be able to offer local delivery for around $1 (78p) but admits that it is some way from that price. That is because today’s robots still need humans, earning at least the minimum wage, to remotely control them at tricky points, such as crossings and traffic lights.

    This article is a goldmine for conservatives.

    "We want $15!"
    "Don't worry, we're improving the robot technology so we can fire all of you. We would keep you if we could pay less than minimum wage."

    The drawback to creative destruction is that it often takes several election cycles before the newly-unemployed blacksmiths have steady jobs at the car plant. And unemployed blacksmiths tend to get grumpy and vote.



  • @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Of course, one huge problem not unique to that area is that the builders are asshats and firmly believe that the best way to solve the housing crisis is by building more $500k+ townhomes. One wonders whether these fuckers ever thought for a moment that 1) this is outside the grasp of most Americans, 2) those who can afford that sum might have financial goals outside of homeownership, or 3) that price range includes a lot of resale single-family homes with some land.

    Eh...a yuuuge problem there is that developers are very constrained by local laws, so they can only build what they can build. Even so, a $500K+ townhome sounds like a bargain for that part of the world.

    I posted (somewhere) some interesting discussions about SF housing. These are the links:

    The comments are very interesting. I think it's indisputable that more high end housing near/in SF would improve the situation for all. Probably not by a lot, unless there's a lot of new stuff, because demand for housing is enormous there.

    I have family in SoCal and I'm amazed at how much new housing is being built. I mean...they need it for all the people, but the roads are not up to the job (not unlike DC's exurbs), based on where jobs are vs the housing, plus I don't know where they're going to get water for all these new people, but, eh?



  • @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Of course, one huge problem not unique to that area is that the builders are asshats and firmly believe that the best way to solve the housing crisis is by building more $500k+ townhomes. One wonders whether these fuckers ever thought for a moment that 1) this is outside the grasp of most Americans, 2) those who can afford that sum might have financial goals outside of homeownership, or 3) that price range includes a lot of resale single-family homes with some land.

    Eh...a yuuuge problem there is that developers are very constrained by local laws, so they can only build what they can build. Even so, a $500K+ townhome sounds like a bargain for that part of the world.

    I posted (somewhere) some interesting discussions about SF housing. These are the links:

    The comments are very interesting. I think it's indisputable that more high end housing near/in SF would improve the situation for all. Probably not by a lot, unless there's a lot of new stuff, because demand for housing is enormous there.

    I like how Trauss so easily debunks Mr.-Physicist-Posing-as-Armchair-Sociologist even after the dogpile of commenters in each article had their way with him. There's something satisfying about seeing naïveté and oversimplified theories dripping with personal prejudices being crushed.

    I have family in SoCal and I'm amazed at how much new housing is being built. I mean...they need it for all the people, but the roads are not up to the job (not unlike DC's exurbs), based on where jobs are vs the housing

    I think teleworking is going to solve that problem faster than any infrastructure project will.

    plus I don't know where they're going to get water for all these new people, but, eh?

    I thought that was always a problem that was pushed away for Norcal to deal with? :trolleybus:



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @Rhywden

    When I mentioned that coal miners have every right to be happy with Trump's attempt to bring coal jobs back, several people on this forum made it a point to me that it wasn't government regulation and that coal as an industry was dying and coal miners shouldn't expect to get their jobs back.

    Why are delivery jobs any different?

    I'm not sure that engaging in a race to the bottom makes this any better. "You have a job you can't live off" versus "You have no job".

    Both options don't really appeal to anyone.



  • @Rhywden said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @Rhywden

    When I mentioned that coal miners have every right to be happy with Trump's attempt to bring coal jobs back, several people on this forum made it a point to me that it wasn't government regulation and that coal as an industry was dying and coal miners shouldn't expect to get their jobs back.

    Why are delivery jobs any different?

    I'm not sure that engaging in a race to the bottom makes this any better. "You have a job you can't live off" versus "You have no job".

    Both options don't really appeal to anyone.

    Both options appeal to intellectually lazy Just Worlders.



  • @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Obviously you should tax delivery cars more

    Why do you wasteful american people use cars and vans for delivery? Motorcyclists driving like mad are much faster and cost-effective.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @wharrgarbl said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Motorcyclists driving like mad are much faster and cost-effective.

    ...until they get someone killed, that is.



  • @masonwheeler only time I got a car doing a food delivery it was the restaurant owner, because it was a new small business and he was out of delivery crazy men.



  • @RaceProUK said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Why are delivery jobs any different?

    Because the delivery 'industry' is only going to get bigger?

    But the human delivery jobs are no longer needed.

    Is there some moral requirement to hiring humans just because someone has to hire them?

    Well, in that case then you need to make incentives to hiring people, so that it's more attractive than automation.



  • @wharrgarbl said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Obviously you should tax delivery cars more

    Why do you wasteful american people use cars and vans for delivery? Motorcyclists driving like mad are much faster and cost-effective.

    Because our motorcyclists tend to get themselves killed.



  • @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    I like how Trauss so easily debunks Mr.-Physicist-Posing-as-Armchair-Sociologist even after the dogpile of commenters in each article had their way with him. There's something satisfying about seeing naïveté and oversimplified theories dripping with personal prejudices being crushed.

    I think that part of his problem was poor communication. Like...he kept saying stuff that made it sound like he didn't believe in supply and demand, but then he'd say that he really meant that it would take an unrealistic amount of new supply to make a big difference, or whatever, which is super reasonable. Or...he had this thing about, "Well, the region will change but not the city of SF."

    @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    I think teleworking is going to solve that problem faster than any infrastructure project will.

    Possibly. But I've known a few people who just couldn't manage telecommuting. Like, too distracted at home to get anything done. I'm not sure if there's going to be a reasonable way to sort out those who can vs those who can't with the jobs for which it makes sense.

    @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    I thought that was always a problem that was pushed away for Norcal to deal with?

    That's what NorCal likes to say, but it's also draining Lake Mead.



  • @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Both options appeal to intellectually lazy Just Worlders.

    Just because @flabdablet hasn't logged in for a while doesn't mean we need a new @flabdablet.



  • @xaade that's what @masonwheeler said, we just keep replacing them



  • @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    I think that part of his problem was poor communication. Like...he kept saying stuff that made it sound like he didn't believe in supply and demand, but then he'd say that he really meant that it would take an unrealistic amount of new supply to make a big difference, or whatever, which is super reasonable. Or...he had this thing about, "Well, the region will change but not the city of SF."

    Poor communication was most likely most of his problem, yes. I think Trauss' hypothetical about 20 million people vs. 7 million is, if a shot in the dark, a better assessment. And really, solutions should be focused around the greater metropolitan area (the Peninsula, Marin County, South and East Bay) instead of the city proper: much as how people in this part of the world are starting to think about a "corridor" between Richmond and Baltimore.

    Possibly. But I've known a few people who just couldn't manage telecommuting. Like, too distracted at home to get anything done. I'm not sure if there's going to be a reasonable way to sort out those who can vs those who can't with the jobs for which it makes sense.

    Modern technology makes workers equally capable of goofing off anywhere.

    Though I can attest to the whole distraction thing, but it's invaluable to be able to run errands during the day, even if you have to work later to make up for it. As far as management? Assign tasks or milestones. Have deadlines.

    That's what NorCal likes to say, but it's also draining Lake Mead.

    And then we get into the damned almonds, another Third Rail of California's water politics.



  • @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    And really, solutions should be focused around the greater metropolitan area (the Peninsula, Marin County, South and East Bay) instead of the city proper

    Yeah. His formulation was "interesting" as a mathematical problem but pretty worthless a a real world approach to problem solving. TBH, it came off as a bit of a troll, but I don't think he meant it that way.

    @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    And then we get into the damned almonds, another Third Rail of California's water politics.

    Kill the delta smelt.

    I miss a lot of things about living there, but I'm ultimately glad that I left.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @wharrgarbl said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Why do you wasteful american people use cars and vans for delivery? Motorcyclists driving like mad are much faster and cost-effective.

    Depends what is being delivered, surely? Things that fit a box you can put on a motorcycle can be delivered that way, but with larger items you need the space of a car or (more likely) van.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Because our motorcyclists tend to get themselves killed.

    Can you replace them faster than they die? If so, you're just culling the weak. Natural selection FTW!


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @dkf said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @wharrgarbl said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Why do you wasteful american people use cars and vans for delivery? Motorcyclists driving like mad are much faster and cost-effective.

    Depends what is being delivered, surely? Things that fit a box you can put on a motorcycle can be delivered that way, but with larger items you need the space of a car or (more likely) van.

    Large swaths of America are too decentralized for motorcycle delivery of much more than food. When you push delivery areas out farther, it becomes more efficient in all respects for a van to do it as they can carry enough stuff to make it worthwhile to go that far.

    When it is an hour drive to your delivery area, you need to take 6 hours worth of packages so the driver can put in a full day's work and not spend all day driving back to the depot to pick up more stuff.



  • This is all so stupid with an obvious solution:

    UNDOCUMENTED ROBOTS


  • SockDev

    @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    This is all so stupid with an obvious solution:

    UNDOCUMENTED ROBOTSDRONES

    FTFY(&SF)


  • :belt_onion:

    "San Francisco considering ban ..."

    Maybe people in San Francisco smell bad?


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @wharrgarbl said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @xaade said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Obviously you should tax delivery cars more

    Why do you wasteful american people use cars and vans for delivery? Motorcyclists driving like mad are much faster and cost-effective.

    Because if we didn't have dedicated pizza-deliverating sportscars pushing 120km/h, how would we get our pizza within 30 minutes of ordering?



  • @RaceProUK said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    YIMBY

    Tip to the people running that website: EXPLAIN WHAT YIMBY ACTUALLY MEANS :tangerine:

    NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard

    I assume YIMBY = Yes In My Back Yard, the opposite of NIMBY



  • @pydsigner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Because if we didn't have dedicated pizza-deliverating sportscars pushing 120km/h, how would we get our pizza within 30 minutes of ordering?

    Motorcycles used for delivery here aren't expensive, powerful vehicles, but they'll cross red semaphores, enter sidewalks and wrong ways, and pass traffic jams running in the gap between lanes.



  • @masonwheeler said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @wharrgarbl said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    Motorcyclists driving like mad are much faster and cost-effective.

    ...until they get someone killed, that is.

    That's another way to lower unemployment :wink:



  • @WernerCD said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @RaceProUK said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    @boomzilla said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    YIMBY

    Tip to the people running that website: EXPLAIN WHAT YIMBY ACTUALLY MEANS :tangerine:

    NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard

    I assume YIMBY = Yes In My Back Yard, the opposite of NIMBY

    YIMBY = Yes In My Butt Yay



  • @ben_lubar
    Sounds like a job for @Perverted_Vixen !



  • @Groaner said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    by $4k monthly mortgages in that part of the world.

    If you just got a 4K/mo mortgage, you probably didn't buy a house here! My mortgage is just under 2K. And I bought 20 years ago.

    the best way to solve the housing crisis is by building more $500k+ townhomes

    Anything under 500K here is in an area you don't want to live. Either that, or it needs to be razed and started over.



  • @dcon said in San Francisco considering ban ...:

    If you just got a 4K/mo mortgage, you probably didn't buy a house here! My mortgage is just under 2K. And I bought 20 years ago.

    My source for that statement was an anecdote posted by someone on Zuckerberg's web application, so take it with the necessary amounts of salt.

    Anything under 500K here is in an area you don't want to live. Either that, or it needs to be razed and started over.

    After dealing with a realtor for whom anything that wasn't a luxury community was a "rough neighborhood," I'm somewhat skeptical of this whole "area you don't want to live" business. There are some new townhomes at that price point shooting up near where I live (and some at much higher prices closer to the city), but there are also condos with attached garages that can be had in the mid-200's. If those condos are full of hoodlums who manage to reliably cough up about $1500/month to keep a roof over their heads, they're probably my kind of hoodlums.



  • ...


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.