No, worse. They trusted their experts and they trusted what the Ukrainians reported. They smelled blood and giddily thought they had the opportunity to humiliate Russia—without getting their hands too dirty. Culminating in the resounding failure of the 2023 Kontr.
By fall 2023 they knew the score. But they couldn’t get out then and they still can’t.
Putin didn't invade in 2018-19 because he was still preparing. There are indications that the invasion was planned for 2020, but obviously COVID happened.
It took a month to prepare. The original plan was to invade in 2018 but Trump said no. Then covid happened and it got delayed again. Then the Chinese asked that Putin wait until the Beijing Olympics were over. This is how it became February 2022.
Further the Biden Afghan withdrawal convinced Putin that Biden wouldn't react.
Bullshit. 2018 was the year when the FIFA World Cup was held in Russia. Putin obviously didn't want to sabotage them.
Trumpy tantrums did nothing, I repeat. Neither is he going to do anything useful once he gets back into the office. Putin will play him off like a sucker he is.
> Someone in Montana should not have to pay to rebuild homes in California.
Montana receives way more Federal aid per capita than California. So it's fair to say that Californians shouldn't be paying for road maintenance in Montana.
Except that IPv6 is actually not that large. You effectively can't use networks that are smaller than /64, because stateless autoconfiguration can't use any other prefix size (there's an effort to fix it, but it'll take a decade at best)
That was my whole point. There are not 2^128 ipv6 addresses for Individual use but there are 2^64 /64 networks.
If you rent a vps with a ipv6 “address” you will see that you are given a /64 network.
There is no effort to “fix” the bottom 64 bits because it’s not needed. There are enough /56 networks to for the next 500 years and 99% of people can do everything they need with an isp provided /56. IPv4 has survived with 48 bit nat for this long so 64 bit is even more buffer space
You can absolutely use them, you just need static or DHCP addressing just like the old days. But thanks SLAAC for forcing my ISP to give me /64 or bigger so I can always subnet into /96 for example.
The investment in infrastructure is cyclical. A lot of ISPs started large expansion projects, fueled by the lockdowns in 2020-s that highlighted the inadequate infrastructure. A lot of content companies also acquired additional IPv4 space for servers.
One area that is overlooked is commercialization. I believe, that the decentralized protocol needs to support some kind of paid subscription and/or micropayments.
WebMonetization ( https://webmonetization.org/docs/ ) is a good start, but they're not tackling the actual payment infrastructure setup.
We have a natural experiment: Minneapolis vs. Madison.
Minneapolis abolished the single-family zoning and parking requirements in 2018. And it worked, developers swarmed the city like vultures attracted to carrion.
Madison did no such nonsense.
Can you guess the impact of these policies on housing costs?
There is too much complexity in that single example and the law of supply/demand has been proven too frequently for it to not make sense that increasing demand to meet supply would reduce cost.
Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built.
From your linked blog post:
> Freemark finds extremely mixed and uncertain evidence for the effects of upzoning, and one of several reasons he identifies is that the link between upzoning and actual housing production is tenuous. In other words, “Are they allowed to build it?” is a different question from, “Are they building it?”
Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply.
EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price. This is the contention of the comment I responded to, and it is fundamentally different from the claim that zoning changes fail to increase supply.
> Firstly, your link is focused on zoning changes, specifically how they are insufficient to prompt addition supply to be built.
Yeah. The misery pushers (urbanists) can't admit outright that their ideology is leading to disaster, can they? So they now need not only zoning restrictions lifted, but the state must also build housing and give it out to "deserving" people for cheap.
> Secondly, building more suburbs and more cities increases the supply… which indicates agreement that the price problem is one of insufficient supply.
I'm not arguing against supply-and-demand in general (I'm not a communist idiot). I'm arguing against the _density_ increases.
> EDIT: To be perfectly clear, the data I disagree with is that increasing supply in Minneapolis failed to impact price.
But it did. The real estate transaction index clearly shows that there were no positive effects from the new construction.
Moreover, I analyzed all the real estate sales in the US, Canada, and parts of Europe since 1995. I have not found a single example of a large (>100k population) city that decreased the housing sale prices by increasing density.
Even during the crash of 2007, the dense housing crashed less than comparative nearby sparse housing.
The scholarly literature is also unambiguous. The best effects of density increases are either mild (transient effects on rent), or indirect (migration chains).
You keep referring to people who like cities that function as cities as "misery pushers" and then in the same breath doing as much as you can to create an association between increased density and all these hypothetical negative possibilities. Likewise it just seems as though you've developed some level of prejudice based on the negative experience you're contending with in your neighborhood, and then extrapolating that quite severely, because you think you've been lied to. It's tricky to reconcile how if you were inclined to be optimistic about the prospect of urbanism to begin with, you'd be so intensely and easily convinced otherwise, or surprised that the creation of an arbitrary higher density building didn't turn your low density town into European capital city overnight. Like how does it happen that you lived in no specific place in Europe for example, then to where you are now, and one thing gets built which convinces you that actually every city in Europe is and has always been wrong.
Your chart shows two lines that seem to represent sales of something over time in nearby cities, which may or may not be relevant, but are at most a narrow slice of what one would need to look at in order to understand what's going on over in Minneapolis if anything.
You then create a strawman who thinks the removal of zoning restrictions will automatically lead to a utopia in which we have no other human problems or economic systems to contend with, even going so far as to dismiss someone on the basis of a lacking argument against a claim that nobody made.
> You keep referring to people who like cities that function as cities as "misery pushers"
That's an apt description.
> in the same breath doing as much as you can to create an association between increased density and all these hypothetical negative possibilities.
Why are they hypothetical? Density has long been associated with worse outcomes (higher crime, etc.). I can provide plenty of citations to scholarly literature.
> Like how does it happen that you lived in no specific place in Europe for example, then to where you are now
I grew up in Russia (Izhevsk), moved to Germany (Karlsruhe), then to Ukraine (Kyiv), and (briefly) to the Netherlands before coming to the US. I did not have a car in any of these places.
> and one thing gets built which convinces you that actually every city in Europe is and has always been wrong.
Yes. I'm able to compare the life in the US and in Europe first-hand. And Europe has plenty of dark secrets of its own. For example, Copenhagen in Denmark became the world's most liveable city by ruthlessly controlling its population. It still has not reached its peak number in 1970-s. Bet you didn't know that?
> Your chart shows two lines that seem to represent sales of something over time in nearby cities, which may or may not be relevant, but are at most a narrow slice of what one would need to look at in order to understand what's going on over in Minneapolis if anything.
I have real estate data with street-level information. It's not a public dataset, so I'm replicating my results using public datasets.
> You then create a strawman who thinks the removal of zoning restrictions will automatically lead to a utopia
No. I'm saying that removal of zoning limits to allow increased density does NOT lead to lower prices. It leads to increased density and increased misery as a result.
Minneapolis is simply a good example of this. There is another very good one: Seattle (where I live now). It increased its density by 25% over the last 12 years, many times leading the nation in the number of active construction cranes. The result? Faster price growth than even in SF.
Austin is an interesting case. It tripped me up a bit when I saw it.
But it turned out that my prediction was correct because the Austin population went _down_ during the pandemic.
Population:
2019 - 978,763
2022 - 975,418
2023 - 979,882
The overall Travis County population went up a bit. And the prices, in the places other than Austin, are also up.
I can also give a prediction, if Austin population growth recovers (not a given), the price growth rate will quickly outpace the surrounding Travis County.
FWIW: as a Minneapolis resident, my experience is that there is active hostility and grassroots rejection of adding dense housing in neighborhoods that are traditionally single family homes. I would be curious to see how much dense housing has actually been built post-2018 relative to the historical norm, as the small number of apartment buildings I've seen go up along light rail and buss corridors have fought tooth and nail against certain demographics in the neighborhoods.
Those abolishments are way less intense than you're thinking. There's still a ton of restrictions that make building even the triplexes that they technically legalized actually get built. Things like floor/area ratios and setbacks, which make building dwellings that people want difficult.
You live near one of these developments? Your reaction may be correct, but my experience has been that the density has brought amenities. A brewery, a cafe, and a good restaurant moved into vacant/underutilized spaces. My street hasn’t been had issues with long-term parkers. Crime’s no issue. IDK. My experience doesn’t align with your certainty.
I actually do live in a neighborhood affected by densification, although not in Minneapolis. The "amenities" got worse, a couple of local small stores were demolished and replaced with apartment buildings. A couple of these apartment buildings are "low barrier housing", meaning that they are given to junkies. So the property crime in the area skyrocketed (not helped by newly opened transit), and we don't have a single 24-hour pharmacy in the area anymore.
The street parking is now oversubscribed, so my friends often have to circle around the area for quite a while to find a spot when they visit me.
These changes actually made me look into the question of density. Before that first-hand experience, I used to be a pro-urbanist victim of propaganda. And yes, I lived in Europe and I got my driving license when I was about 30.
That’s unfortunate. Maybe it can be done well or be done poorly. From my experience as a homeowner in Minneapolis, the dense housing has been net neutral/positive.
I don't think you read and understood the article you just linked. That is talking about a very broad set of reforms, not the single family home zoning abolishment.
In a functioning economy, people won't be feeling pressure to move into a handful of population centers.
Canada has PLENTY of free space for construction, and modern construction is pretty cheap and efficient. But economic forces are concentrating the growth in a few areas. Well-intentioned efforts to force "affordable housing" and "walkable neighborhoods" make these forces even worse.
The root cause fix is to stop the economic forces that pack people into ever smaller areas.
People have been moving from rural areas to cities since the beginning of the industrial revolution. People want to improve their economic lot, and that is the most likely way to do it. I didn't know of it is even possible to stop that in a capitalist society.
> The result? I'm looking at 2 bedroom apartments, and they are 1000$ cheaper than they were 3 years ago when I first moved here. Rent has gone down and continues to go down. I'm seeing studio apartments in the middle of the city renting out for 800$ now!
That's not a result of new construction. It's a result of the Austin population declining in absolute numbers: 978,763 in 2019, 975,418 in 2022. It bounced back a bit to 979,882 in 2023.
Travis County grew a little bit, but all the growth is in the suburban areas.
That 2023 number is roughly a thousand larger than that 2019 number. The changes to all of the numbers you're quoting are in the noise as far as considering changes to the cost of housing.
reply