That's not going to work in most places in Africa as it would mean a lot of investment in infrastructure by the government and also high ongoing maintenance costs.

This solution uses the same roads as everyone else and is much easier to roll-out, and does not require a massive upfront investment to be useful.

I'm so glad to have never heard about most and not ever having watched any of them.

From the first article and the video, it seems to be much ado about nothing.

Their counter-example shows the problem:

> "German soldiers, or the Nazis," Pasch clarified. "Would she feel the same way about, like 9/11? Does she want the perspective of the hijackers who flew the planes into buildings? No, because there's moral absolutes, right? And so there aren't two sides to every historical event."

Actually you probably do want to know the perspective of terrorists, if only to know how to prevent repeat incidents.

Quite true. I assume you mean Russia, but it could be so many another countries.

But this is why for example exporting businesses is better than extractive economies, as it relies more on the existence of good governance and citizen prosperity in a country.

Since the company is taking on the risk of charging and maintaining the buses, their business model shows confidence in the lower running costs of electric vehicles.

And whether those countries invest that money into ongoing development is up to them.

> It's also the single biggest form of wealth redistribution and normalization of massive wealth difference between nations.

This is what people object against really, but it should be obvious that a making poor nations richer makes everyone safer, in the same way making people in a poor part of a city richer helps everyone be safer.

See, the good thing about an ASI is that it will have time for both the big things and the little details. That is what makes it an ASI.

So while it will be strip-mining Mercury to make a Dyson swarm it will also have enough time to individually plan your torture in exquisite detail, perfectly customised to your pain tolerance level.

Such is the wonder of ASI.

> Annual rates are irrelevant. Long term trends are more important.

And this is the long term trend.

https://dqydj.com/historical-homeownership-rate-united-states/

> that happens here with great regularity every 10-15 years

Then its just part of the process and not really a sign of a long-term trend, is it?

Are you willing to concede now, or are you going to continue making unfounded claims.

It looks like leasehold for 50-70 years, but that is not different from Uk for example.

It's happening a lot these days. Emotion over common sense, which means no real solutions for problems are found, just what makes people feel better.

> Home ownership is dropping in my country.

Really?

> Typically, there is incremental movement for homeownership statistics over time. However, homeownership rates are subject to volatility around larger economic events. For example, after peaking at 69% in 2004, 2008’s Great Recession led to homeownership rates declining, falling to just 63.4% by 2016. As homeownership began to slowly recover, the rate peaked again at 67.9% in the second quarter of 2020 before falling to 65.5% at the end of 2021, most likely due to the pandemic. Homeownership rates may be subject to more volatility in the near future.

Q1 2020 65.3%

Q4 2021 65.5%

Q 3 2022 66%

Do the numbers being different from your perception change your mind at all? Or are your views not fact-based?

The same technology which replaces jobs will bring down the cost of living and enable us to live in places which are not viable now. Precision fermentation may even make huge tracks of farm land available for habitation.

I think people are much more likely to look at an image than read a link, but anyway.

https://dqydj.com/historical-homeownership-rate-united-states/

It's interesting to me that people have extremely strong views on something which if they googled it for 20 seconds they would know is wrong.

People prefer anger over facts these days.

Home ownership in USA has fluctuated between 60-70% for decades now and was a lot lower in the past.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your rant.

> The Samsung factory workers get around $180 in monthly base salary, which can grow to around $300 when overtime, annual incentives and other benefits are included. That is well above average incomes in such rural areas.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-samsung-elec-smartphones-vietnam-idUSKBN12E113

If there is 90% home ownership, and you are being paid above average, what does that mean?

> How can it secure housing when the people aren't being paid enough to do so?

Why would you believe that is not the case? I'm not talking about you.

Sure, which is why I said it's not 100% politics and finance. Like everything it's multi-factorial. But technology is a massive enabler.

Clearly you are not giving it much thought. Vietnam's home ownership rate is 90% for example.

OP, I think you may be on to something.

In the extreme case, with UBI, we would not need to live close to a job in any case - you could go live in the desert with solar power and farm moisture.

> housing isn't limited by technology - it is limited by politics and finance.

This is not 100% true. First streetcars, then commuter trains and then cars allowed people to live further and further from work and access cheaper housing. So that is directly technology related.

As OP notes. remote work is now allowing people to return to small towns, which is a real thing.

> Has outsourcing improved homelessness in the countries the work is outsourced to? I see no evidence of that being true.

On the face of it, why would it not? It funnels wealth to less developed parts of the world, and that money would be used to secure housing.

And only 3,300 tons of CO2.

Here is a picture of the garage. Not sure why it costs $65 million however.

That logic especially holds when you overbuilt solar and have masses of excess solar that would otherwise go to waste.