I’m not saying it is the case here, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons for why someone would want to disappear from their parents, no matter how well written the parents’ classified ad may be.
I see them a lot along the 3rd St corridor. Recently saw one almost come to a complete stop at a green light on 3rd in Dogpatch, before the driver took over and gunned the gas pedal.
This is why cash prizes for advances that decrease the cost of space travel is the only thing a politician can do that has any chance of gaining my respect. It's action, not speech, and within a fixed time frame either tangible progress will be made or not.
Twenty billion dollars to develop and demonstrate a reusable mass-driver system for deployment unmanned cargo to orbit? In the big scheme of things it's a drop in the bucket. But it would make a ton of other things much, much cheaper.
The only problem is that it doesn't sound as sexy as a "vision" of space exploration decades from now.
But, what I think is unfortunate in house design and construction is that houses are built for use < 100 years
We could be building small modern castles that we could hand down
While I see value in structures standing as monuments to be handed down to future generations - mostly large structures built for public use - I can't say that I've met a 100-year-old-house that hasn't had significant shortcomings. Renovations upon renovations to upgrade electrical, plumbing, HVAC have the potential to make building interiors look like a hodgepodge of bolt-on improvements. Then, one still contends with features that fall out of modern building code: that narrow staircase or the low ceiling in the basement or no windows in the bedrooms.
At a certain point, one cannot predict the housing requirements of the future and it would be more economical, and humane, to just start from a pile of dirt once again.
> At a certain point, one cannot predict the housing requirements of the future and it would be more economical, and humane, to just start from a pile of dirt once again.
That's true. But if the next generation did not have to build their own houses it would give them a 'dividend' passed down by the previous generation and that wealth would ultimately give them more economic freedom and fewer opportunity costs.
Then with those advantages, any problems will be easier to face, such as starting from the pile of dirt again.
Otherwise each generation is constantly facing the same struggles with paying the rent.
Also consider, and I think this was implicit in what the OP was saying, that closed loop systems might make many existing problems relating to maintenance obsolete. So the next iteration of building might take place in two or four generations from now instead of for each one.
Sadly truly effective maintenance free filter technology appears to be holding closed loop systems development back. I know Kamen was trying to build a Slingshot mechanism but so far as I know this has not bourne any fruit. This is the kind of unsexy, hard stuff that Silicon Valley need to be pulling together.
2) Lots of young adults are going to chase the best opportunities in their fields, which are not accessible from the towns they grow up in.
3) Even only children don't get to inherit the house until parents die or move to a retirement facility. This is moving later and later into middle age, well after the "I want a house and marriage and kids" stage.
This is a misunderstanding. I was not taking about inheritances. The word generation can have two meanings. One is for each iteration of family members. The other is with respect to human society. I meant the second.
If houses could easily last 100-200 years without structural alteration being necessary then some generations would never pay for housing, just as we don't really pay for the capital cost of building most roads but the continued upkeep of them.
There is a thought that the "disposability" of Japanese housing [1] has played some role in Japan's economic issues. Housing can still serve as something of an inter-generational value transfer even if children don't end up living in the actual house/land. (Which I agree isn't all that common.)
>Housing can still serve as something of an inter-generational value transfer
Except inheritance comes when you need it least: late middle age, when the house is already paid off or close and there's little time for savings to compound before retirement.
Paying for (most of) your children's education is a much more effective form of inter-generational value transfer: it comes at the time young adults face the greatest expenses relative to their earning power, and lets them reap the benefits of a high-end career without excessive debt (so they can actually build wealth).
I don't disagree with any of that. At least given full healthy lives and reasonably successful careers, inherited money from parents is often going to come after it would have the greatest impact.
But if housing is treated as a more disposable asset (which is presumably less efficient in many cases than updating and remodeling) the cost of that decreased efficiency comes from somewhere. Perhaps from a grandchild's college fund.
Aside from [bot] spam, I agree with the statement of Those were your users.
What OP really wants are the good comments, which is more than just spam filtering and also more subjective. If an ill-informed, 13-year-old's comment would be considered low-value noise, website operators would need to engage in something resembling censorship, which has its own set of problems.
Many companies will want to adjust your salary downward if you are moving from the Bay Area to a lower cost of living location. This article seems to gloss over that fact.
This article (probably intentionally) left out some detail from the official FTC source [1] stating:
Instead, according to the complaint, Warner Bros. instructed influencers to place the disclosures in the description box appearing below the video. Because Warner Bros. also required other information to be placed in that box, the vast majority of sponsorship disclosures appeared “below the fold,” visible only if consumers clicked on the “Show More” button in the description box. In addition, when influencers posted YouTube videos on Facebook or Twitter, the posting did not include the “Show More” button, making it even less likely that consumers would see the sponsorship disclosures.
Looks like the YouTubers followed the contract that was vetted by Warner Brother Lawyers and other Warner Agents. Sadly the YouTuber should have placed the information first but I see them more as a victims. They should have seen the need to help their viewers and their channel more by fully disclosing in the video and with graphics.
"Sadly the YouTuber should have placed the information first but I see them more as a victims."
Please. Youtubers have only to put "sponsored stream" in the title to remove all doubt and be honest about it. It is a common practice, and many fans are not bothered when it happens, or think less of the youtuber since it is understood their need to monetize.
If they purposely accepted a contract that told them to hide the fact that they were being sponsored, they are as reprehensible as WB.
They were the ones who chose to tank their own credibility by taking money to produce paid promo videos that looked like ordinary non-promotional content. They're not the victims here; the viewers they deceived for profit are.
Well I actually watched a PewDiePie video of it. He just played the game which he would have probably done anyways. There wasn't even a review just fun game, which it was to the vast majority of people.
