I don't know how they are doing business wise, but Criminal Records in Little Five Points is a great record store in Atlanta. Was quite bustling the last time I was there, fwiw.
Wow, this is fascinating, my family is originally from Cumberland (actually Frostburg, but...). My mom was born and raised there, but left as soon as she could. Everybody did, and I don't think anyone from my family has been back there since my grandmother died decades ago.
It's really the eastern edge of Appalachia, but also very much a rust belt relic that depended on industries that are long, long gone (at least from that region). I think Kelly tires had a plant there when my mom was younger.
I've always wanted to go back and see it, just to compare it with my memories. It was in pretty steep decline already in the 70s and 80s, as even a kid could tell. I remember reading that they built a number of prisons nearby, also some across the border in Pennsylvania, but clearly that has not done enough to revitalize things.
I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.
Agreed. And you would think at least some of the journalists would leak evidence of this if they took the integrity of their profession seriously. Again, a lack of evidence isn't proof it didn't happen either.
Journalism isn't a profession. Even nurses and some managerial employees are held to a higher standard of duty. You will have an easier time holding someone who is responsible for fixing ice cream machines to an objective standard of professionalism than you will a journalist.
Some journalists have tried to conjure up "professional standards" that aren't binding, but the fact that they are not binding is why it's not a profession and why those "standards" are just suggestions. Unfortunately, the accumulated cruft of decades of wrongly decided cases grants this pseudo-profession many special rights and no formal duties to counterbalance those.
Leak why? This isn’t exactly controversial to say hey this sector that’s becoming insanely integrated into our society and economy deserves a critical lens. In fact I’d argue that’s exactly their job.
Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts?
> it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership
Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it?
A reporter in a position to know is a great source. The news business runs on "a source close to... said" and "a high-placed source said..."
If what the source said seems to contradict other evidence, that's a different matter.
This question can be easily answered with a search for NYTimes and green energy in tech or when Elon initially helped Ukraine using Starlink or any of the multitude of articles on advances in robotics or how new advances in computing help solve problems in healthcare.
I think it's a thickly veiled ad, if it's an ad at all.
It's legitimate news that some parents do it. It's business news that Apple's trying to make it kid-friendly.
The article doesn't extoll the virtues of giving a smartwatch to your kids. I guess you wanted them to trash the whole idea? They do say in the first paragraph, "The smart watch cost $279, and he worried that its recipient would immediately break or lose it."
Ads often mention the price of the product. The article goes on and on about the supposed benefits of giving your kid a smart watch, specifically the Apple brand of smart watch, contrasting it favorably to buying them a phone instead.
At the very least, it's not negative coverage of Apple. Even if you think it neutral coverage (I don't), it's a counter-example to the supposed directive that all tech coverage have a negative tone. And they categorized it as tech news, not business news.
The article is promoting this product as a better alternative than buying a smartphone for your kids. $279 is cheaper than most smartphones. And it's not too hard to find overt Apple ads that list much higher prices. Listing the price of a product in an article singing praises of that product does not constitute the article being critical of Apple.
Perhaps we've exhausted this topic. I view it as mildly positive and very weak journalism, not balanced. Your view is more drastic.
A balanced article would have found some parents who all said, "Hell, no, I'm not buying that for him. He'll lose it inside of a month." There are probably a lot of such parents.
As for "singing praises of that product" -- I think that is totally legitimate. It IS a product that does a lot of stuff and some people might like it for that. Do you expect them to invent some faults with it?
I'd also expect a real journalist to get some numbers on their sales, not just find one user who likes it.
(On the other hand, Walt Mossberg would have tried it for a week and given it a grade, idk what.)
It’s always read as the Luddite paper of record to me. Not only does it hate all over tech as an industry compulsively, it hates all over technology in general ritually. I can’t imagine how such a directive could change the paper visibly.
There's a difference between "things that can be proven in a court of law" and "things that are generally considered true."
For the former, some shop owner has to risk his life testifying, or the cops have to have recordings. A newspaper does not and cannot hold to this standard.
Which is why I included persecute, which is what people do in many cases online. I think it's good practice to not persecute others until you have sufficient evidence.
That can mean not making judgement based on things which are generally true in cases where it can damage another's reputation or result in the internet mob descending on them.
There's two people claiming it. This one and the one discussed yesterday. Hopefully more will come out, but at this point I'm inclined to give them the benefit of believing it.
Or maybe we just run every NYT tech story for the past 24 months through a sentiment analysis
Even within what’s said I’d be curious for the exact quote. NYT doesn’t exist in a vacuum, if the exact quote had been “plenty of other outlets have fawning coverage, let’s focus our efforts on casting a critical eye on the industry” that… doesn’t really seem scandalous at all to me?
To be fair, UCD has built a ton of new student housing in that time frame, including the entire West Village complex. That may be what they are thinking of, even though I don't think that would be included in the town of Davis numbers.
10 year Davis resident here, with generally quite Yimby tendencies. I would support something like this, as we do absolutely need more (and if possible) cheaper housing in town for students. The university is the whole reason the town exists and it's just not healthy to make it prohibitive for students to live here, while at the same time force university staff to live in cheaper surrounding towns and then commute in and out, in my opinion.
But I do have to be realistic, the Nimby feelings in this town are VERY strong. Everybody who buys a house here seems to feel the town should stay exactly the way it was on the day after they arrived, without any recognition of how blinkered that is. The legal fight against something like this would be intense, to say the least. It would require a developer with great lawyers, very deep pockets and the thickest of skins.
I don't live in Davis anymore, but I did live there for 10+ years and used to own a home there. I love Davis. As Sheldon Copper from Big Bang theory puts it, it's my "zero-zero-zero-zero".
While I don't consider myself a NIMBY, because I wouldn't go out of my way to stop a development project, I do appreciate how it has kept Davis a really nice place to live.
I now live in Elk Grove, there are 3 Walmart within 5 minutes of me. Urban sprawl here is ridiculous and can be measured by how many dead skunks, and homeless coyotes you find on the road because farm land and wild spaces are turning into giant air conditioned homes (which I am totally guilty of owning). Folsom, Rancho Cordova, Roseville are the same. If you want to see what happens when Davis grow into a giant city, move to one of these places.
I am not sure what my point is. I guess I am just saying that what Davis is, is not bad, it can be worse.
But for the sake of conversation, if we are going to raze small towns like Davis in the quest of more housing friendly cities, I recommend we model it after Bellevue, WA. They have skyscrapers, and it's beautiful. But then again, that just speaks to the wealth disparity more than anything else... Which is also what keeps Davis so nice.
If people afraid of sprawl say no to vertical, then horizontal is going to happen just outside of wherever they care about.
Many people's politics are wildly irrationally disconnected from their sentiments.
I used to live in Davis. If I was King, I'd steamroll everything between A&B and 1st and Russell and replace it with ~30-40 story apartment buildings with multilevel bike parking like in Amsterdam (ex: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1e/c4/d7/1ec4d7a99c2151699afe...), and rooftop bars and cafes.
I'm a big fan of parking on the periphery and no cars at the core.
Essentially ban private vehicles on certain blocks except for service transport and smaller golf-cart sized "NEV"s
There's many older European cities with buildings too close to each other for cars where this is done. You'll also find it on islands where the infrastructure to support a car is lacking such as roads with high speed limits and gas stations
The difference here is to claim that's not just a necessity of circumstances but instead, actually a good idea.
Lol, ain't that the truth. When the Whole Foods was still there, the chargers around there were the best. It was close to the green belt, coffee, food, and minutes walk from downtown. You could have a real nice "small town" adventure while charging. Ahh... I miss Davis.
I guess that’s the idea behind trying to add infill housing, is to prevent ugly sprawl.
Davis has one of the highest bicycle mode shares of any city in the state. It’s an ideal place to add denser housing without the additional traffic or parking lots that blight a lot of bigger (and less dense) cities.
As someone who grew up in Elk Grove since 2001 and still visits every few months, it's an example of both NIMBY and YIMBY policies. It seems Elk Grove's city hall followed NIMBY tendencies and zoned many areas as RD-5 or worse, prohibiting multi-family dwellings. Its sprawl was partially caused by developers doing "hopscotch development" - Delta Shores was empty for over 20 years before that was infilled and the lots behind it are still empty. Same applies to the Costco and Mercy Hospital near Trader Joe's. Moving on, Elk Grove also has redeeming qualities - it is a suburb that is very racially diverse, partially thanks to the newer, relatively affordable houses in the south. I attended Cosumnes Oaks High School when it was still a lottery admissions system and saw this myself (and after it was switched to a zone admissions system that favored low-income neighborhoods, heardabout the subsequent increase in fights). However, an interesting highlight is the concept surrounding Laguna Town Hall (created when Laguna was trying to split off into its own city). There's apartments, restaurants, a large park, and an Apple campus within walking distance of each other. You can also see good ideas like new senior apartments being built right next to the Trader Joe's in Costco shopping centers for walkability. And I'd be remiss if I'd I didn't mention Elk Grove's network of bike trails, which my father says are enjoyable to ride.
So I'd say Elk Grove's sprawl was driven by NIMBY-style regulation that encouraged low density housing and failed to address the effects of hopscotch development. Within those failures, Elk Grove has a few gimpses of higher density and urban planning, as well as anecdotes about the benefits of mixing different socioeconomic classes.
People tend to vote with their feet and their dollars. It's unclear to me how Elk Grove is "worse" than Davis from your description, besides that there are multiple places for lower income to shop closer to metropolitan areas, in this case Sacramento. Skunks aren't unique to Elk Grove, they're n very urban environments too. "Homeless coyotes" might be a unique phenomenon, most are wild.
As a complete outsider, what I don't understand is why there's so much NIMBYism in CA and such strong (and laudable) support for easy immigration. If not for immigration the US population growth would have slowed to a crawl and there would be much less pressure.
I guess housing prices wouldn't rise as quickly, but I doubt that's a big part of the motivation.
As far as I can tell, almost every city in the US is afflicted with NIMBYs.
I'll give a relatively mundane example in Boston, not even about development. A couple years ago, a taco shop under Emerson College wanted to stay open until 2AM. An organized group of busybodies showed up to the meeting to stop it, claiming it would bother the college students (yes, their claim was that a taco shop open until 2AM would bother college students). The city listened and told the shop it has to close by midnight.[0]
Now, it's pretty obvious to me that the majority of people closest to the taco shop would be fine with it being open. I live a 5-10 minute walk from that location and would love it to be open later as well, but I didn't hear about this meeting until the results were already in. These meetings aren't listed anywhere in bulk online, the people in charge seem to be inclined to listen to whoever wants to stop stuff, and the people who want to stop stuff seem to have organized and made it a full-time hobby to attend these meetings.
So a lot of NIMBY sentiment is simply organization rather than a true majority sentiment.
Nope, but the fact the people who are actually "hard on immigration" had to come up with a new name to distance themselves from the people who are just racist supports my point.
Though, since this is not my first rodeo, I'd suggest at least some portion of those claiming to be “xenophilic restrictionists" will reveal that they are xenophobic, and don't care about restricting the "right kind" of immigration.
As I said, it's not cool to be racist, which confuses matters.
I’m surprised there are so many Walmarts as well given the number of NIMBY in EG. my wife went to the med school there and the folks in Stonelake voted against the new hospital.
People around here are not NIMBYS... We are the best consumers American consumer culture has produced. We will shop the shit out of Costco, Walmart, and the hundreds of fast food restaurants you find around here... Shake Shack, Chick-fil-A, BJ's Restaurant... Hell yes, give us more! You'll never see a more /r/hailcorporate post than the NextDoor thread of a new chain restaurant arriving in town.
I think the only reason that hospital failed was because they wanted to build multiple stories... People around here have a strong aversion to tall buildings. That was like their biggest complaint. They were worried the hospital would be able to look over their fence and into their pools. Urban sprawl can't happen if we build up. LOL.
My first guess is hospital = noise (sirens from ambulances coming and going), whereas Walmarts probably only results in increased traffic and at worst more lower income people out and about.
People really dislike noise. There’s a small airport near me that acts as a regional shipping hub amongst other things and a certain demographic (retirees, not working, own home) is very keen on halting and further business development despite the economic benefits it creates for the city because they don’t like the noise of the airplanes overhead. Personally the occasional airplane is significantly less of a nuisance to me than people revving their loud ass motorcycles at night.
Having lived 4 blocks from a hospital, it's not the ambulances, it's the helicopters. The house had no air conditioning so it was a choice between sweltering plus barely being able to hear a conversation every 20 minutes vs. not being able to hear a conversation at all or even the TV at max volume.
Scientifically that shit is really bad for you, even when you can tune it out. There is a huge correlation with noise (especially during sleep) and cortisol levels among many other things -- it's a massive unmeasured externality (with cars being the primary cause).
Same goes for airports (but even more true of motorcycle dickheads, coal rollers and ricers which are almost always violating vehicle codes but never see enforcement).
That said, NIMBYism isn't the solution. Far better for something along the lines of noise level based zoning, and require whatever project(s) are responsible for noise pollution to pay into a fund that provides building code enforced sound insulation and climate control upgrades as well as compensation for loss of amenity to anyone that gets rezoned (or can prove ambient noise exceeds their zone).
Hospitals also don't actually need to be foot accessible (assuming you've got like a bus to it). If you wanted to do hospitals right you'd buy up a ring of blocks around the construction and turn the whole area into a park - but good luck getting a private corporation (aka the thing that builds hospitals in the US) to pay for that without a whole lot of municipal pressure.
My ears are tuned to the distinct sound of B-17 engines, and I love it when they come trundling by, usually at low altitude. Last summer an Eagle cruised by, at an altitude of about 6 feet. I could have reached out and brushed its wing as it went by, but I was frozen in awe. I'm under the landing pattern for Seatac, and enjoy the heavies floating by overhead.
I like living in Seattle with all the aircraft around!
I've always assumed that NIMBYism primarily gets its hackles raised as soon as you can't drive to exactly the place you want to go without encountering traffic. As someone who uses public transit and their legs to get around I've found that sort of NIMBYism to breed the most hopelessly useless urban planning.
Yes, it varies somewhat depending on region. Fear of the poors is pretty consistent though, and most NIMBY's are pretty strongly pro-car and anti-not-car.
> While I don't consider myself a NIMBY, because I wouldn't go out of my way to stop a development project, I do appreciate how it has kept Davis a really nice place to live.
It's possible to develop in a way that doesn't involve giant strip malls and tons more cars, y'know. Most YIMBY's are urbanists, and would be much more in favor of supporting walking, biking and transit, rather than cars cars cars.
"That is my spot. In an ever-changing world, it is a single point of consistency. If my life were expressed as a function on a four-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, that spot at the moment I first sat on it would be zero-zero-zero-zero."
Linear transformations can be more easily visualized as scaling coordinate systems - this is actually a pretty easy way to grok what's actually going on with the math. Big bang theory is pointlessly obscure (and uses four dimensions in its zero-zero-zero-zero because apparently four dimensions is enough to be "ooh mysterious" without making anyone feel like a dolt - just use two dimensions guys - everyone has worked with graph paper) but here's an interesting video[1] that sort of touches on the fact that linear transformations (by definition) keep the origin consistent.
That assumes that the world is naturally described in four dimensions (the three primary spacial ones and time) - but that's just a habit of humans. It's perfectly valid to describe space-time in one dimension or, if you're a bosonic string theorist, 26. The habit of identifying three dimensions (and leaving out obvious things like spin) is just one that's indoctrinated into us by our common mode of education. 3+1D is certainly very sensible - but it isn't the only right answer by a long shot. And, again, 2D is much more socially common - going to 4D really just feels like being pointlessly obscure.
16 years resident of Davis who just bought a house in nearby Woodland. Davis homes are impossible to afford without two 100k+ salaries. I loved a lot of things about Davis, but this is not one.
> Jon Snow: What did father use to say? Everything before the word "but" is horse sh|t.
"I would support something like this [...] but fortunately it's only theoretical, because there are enough NIMBYs to make sure it has no chance of actually happening"
But I know the feeling, that was me one year ago: "I would love to get a Covid vaccine right away, but (fortunately) there are people with higher priorities who have to get it (and field test it) first". But I have to mention that I did get vaccinated eventually...
Yeah, I can see what you are saying here, but there are some of us around here who support more housing. My reaction was based primarily in just how intense and varied the no growth sentiment is in this town. It honestly takes me aback at times. City council meetings can be surreal.
Alas, people who support more housing, only support it if building it requires no tearing down existing structures, no allocating more land for building, and no conversion of existing buildings.
In other words, people support more housing, as long as it doesn't require more housing. You're free to build anywhere, as long as you leave everywhere untouched.
The headline is a quote that is specific to the discussion of her lawsuit against notorious Holocaust-denier David Irving. "Win" here means in countering denialism, not anti-Semitism generally. She means "history" in the sense of the actual facts of what happened, not some kind of progressive trend toward overcoming hate generally.
Um, did you actually read the article? It's precisely about the ethics of ad blocking.
There is no "unspoken assumption." If content creators deserve renumeration for their work, there are plenty of systems they can use to generate it. Display advertising based on third party serving/tracking technology is proving to be a bad one. Ad blocking is merely the signal to let content creators know they should look for better options.
Kindly note that I'm replying to GPs assertion that it's not their problem, and ad-blocking is simply "just a fact" - not the article itself.
This absolutist view - "ad blocking is always OK, because you can do it" - is what I take issue with, because it has ethical problems. It's wildly different from the article's stance that it is an ethical responsibility to use adblockers to cause a systemic shift away from the attention economy.
And yes, there is an unspoken assumption that work deserves to be remunerated. It underpins our society. There is also an unspoken assumption that in that interaction, there has to be respect for the consumers attention, resources, and desires. The ad industry is often violating that part of the equation.
If you use an ad-blocker as a tool to force the other side to rethink their approach, based on the stance that there's an ethical violation on their part, I fully respect that. I'm not certain it is a good solution, but at the very least, it is rooted in an ethical foundation, with an ethical goal.
"I'll always block it, just because I can" has no such foundation whatsoever, even if the actual effect is currently the same as the principled stand.
I appreciate the serious answer, and I suspect we don't disagree all that much.
I actively want a "systemic shift way from the attention economy" and believe that ad blocking is, somewhat bizarrely, the best practical tool to achieve that end. If there are some people who ad block for reasons I don't endorse, that is up to them.
I actually think ad blocking should be seen as, on balance, a powerfully good force for beneficial change. It's easy, it works, it makes the individual user experience better and has the ultimate effect of encouraging a better web generally. Doc Searls calls it the biggest boycott in history. He's not wrong.
I can't say I'm entirely unsympathetic to the view. I'm concerned that after everything settles, the floor will be littered with the bodies of ad-dependent companies, many of them actually a net positive for society before their demise.
One of the bigger categories here is journalism. Newspapers made - in hindsight - a giant mistake when they bet on advertising instead of subscriptions. The house is already rapidly collapsing around them. I'd like them to get out before the place gets levelled, so to speak. Because functioning journalism is absolutely crucial to a democratic society.
There's also the fact that there's nothing inherently wrong with advertising per se. It's how it's done that truly matters. Respect for privacy and attention is crucial here.
It's a large set of problems, and it affects a tremendous number of people. Which is why I think it matters to question our motives for anything we do there - and hence my objection to "because I can". That's the same attitude that got us here.
See my other comment. I don't care if people use adblock, I just hate the argument people some use to justify it. I believe there are good arguments, but not the "it's my browser" argument. It's self righteous to the extreme.
I don't understand what you are saying. Can I go to the bathroom during the commercial break while watching a football game? Do I have to scroll to the bottom of a page if I look at a headline?
No, of course I don't. If you demand a particular behavior from a reader, then enforce it. Otherwise, don't complain if it's ignored.
They can not look at the ads on the website, or go to the bathroom too. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the argument that it's "because it's mine".
When forbes infested its clients thanks to a third-party ad network that distributed malwares[1], i was smiling with shadenfreude. Maybe i'm self-righteous, but since 2005, blocking ads is for me a way to protect my computer.
