Opposite_Match5303

Opposite_Match5303 t1_ja2rpf6 wrote

Reply to comment by Quiet-Ad-12 in Skiing in MA by Professional-Fix6119

Skiing in VT and NH is certainly better than skiing in eastern Canada. Tremblant is a lovely resort town but nothing super special in terms of skiing, and while I've heard le massif gets tons of snow it's pretty small.

The Canadians all come down to ski Jay.

1

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9mkmzv wrote

It wasn't the end of North Korea. Who would attack a country with a nuke?

You're being too unspecific with "it": yes, CIA-caused regime changed happened dozens of times in the last century. Yes, targeted sanctions work for convincing a regime to change concrete policy: the original JCPOA was a great example. But what you're describing is sanctions and external pressure convincing a regime to dissolve its own existence, which has arguably literally never happened (maybe the end of Apartheid in South Africa would count).

1

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j9f5tpg wrote

Even looking at 1953, supporting 1 side in an internal power struggle is pretty different from the North Korea/Cuba methods you are advocating against Iran. And if the Ayatollah thought he had a credible internal challenger the US could support, it would certainly push him to get a nuke as fast as possible.

1

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j8p0n2f wrote

Your point 2 Is generally known as the "induced demand" hypothesis and is deeply controversial (to say the least) among economists who study housing. And starting with "are you aware" is pretty close to gaslighting and very likely to rub people the wrong way.

13

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j8ozjgc wrote

Adding an additional note to the already excellent answers others have already posted:

Rent stabilization heavily incentivizes landlords to increase rent by the absolute maximum allowed every year even if they wouldn't otherwise, because failing to increase rent one year will restrict the possibility of increasing it next year. That means exponential growth: at 10% growth/year, rents go up by 2.5x in the next decade. It's a truly awful policy which looks good on a very cursory glance but will hurt exactly those its designed to help (since it only applies to older apartments).

11

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j245cyq wrote

Reply to Fast Lane by lucifyed

Faster than the lane to the immediate right. If you are not passing the cars to your right, you are in the wrong; if you are, you are in the right. There's nothing more to it.

34

Opposite_Match5303 t1_j11c4sc wrote

Reply to comment by GM_Pax in Boston, rules of the road by PedXing23

"Subject to the same rules in general" is dramatically moving the goalposts from your original comment, which stated verbatim that bikes are subject to the same rules as cars without exception.

The Massachusetts legislature makes lots of bad laws, especially about bikes: if law was automatically aligned with good policy we'd have the Idaho Stop here, since it's been shown to substantially reduce accidents.

If you want to be upset at 99% of road users across all categories, live your life I guess?

2