help

If all you want is flames, a rocket that goes straight up to the edge of the atmosphere and falls back down is enough (as I discovered when Kerbal Space Program updated their parachute physics).

That raised a red flag for me as well. Using language models to embed text into a high-dimensional numeric space makes sense, but asking ChatGPT to convert it into a number is odd. It can't do math.

Furthermore, the suburban model has inherent physical limits. Only so many people can live in a given area, and only so many cars can fit on a highway leading to the job centers near the urban core.

I'd add that people who might prefer suburban housing in the abstract will choose to live in other places because they want a cheaper rent/mortgage, a shorter commute, access to various urban amenities, etc. People aren't either urban people or suburban people but complicated people.

True, but no one is suggesting we can. What we can do is shift the relative tradeoffs so that people on the margins between one choice and another will choose the other instead.

Even a single individual wants different things. It's not a contradiction to want a variety of different things that are to an extent in conflict with each other. We constantly have to decide what balance of tradeoffs is best for us.

I'm not sure what you're arguing with anymore. What does it matter what people's abstract preferences are?

But that was also accompanied by a major reduction in the amenities available in a city as well as an increase in the danger posed by being near large groups of people.

Yeah? Not killing people is a basic expectation, and the police should be held to a higher standard.

1920s Will Stancil: People prefer to buy liquor of dubious quality from criminals like Al Capone, so your plan to repeal Prohibition and set up a system of regulated liquor stores isn't going to have much effect.

Also, preference for SFH isn't necessarily for the type of home itself but what comes with it: better schools, more living space, nicer neighborhoods, etc. A lot of people would choose a MFH over a SFH if they were allowed to exist in the neighborhoods they prefer but currently can't afford.

In fact, I'd argue that restricting sprawl requires denser infill unless one is willing to push sprawl to cities like Houston and pretend that one's local housing policies bear no responsibility for environmental effects in other places.

I don't see the two ideas as necessarily opposed. While there are definitely some pure libertarian YIMBYs that oppose any restrictions, others can believe both in removing restrictions on denser infill development while also restricting sprawl.

It is a bad thing. He killed a man when he should have arrested him and brought him to justice for what he did.

Arresting people tends to destroy their lives. If Donny thinks this is wrong, he should be a police abolitionist rather than a police detective.

However, he thinks that it should only happen to those who are below him, not to him and his fellow murderer Warren Fox.

A lot of people might prefer a pony, but when they take into account the totality of their circumstance and the tradeoffs, they don't get one.

What people prefer in the abstract and what people choose in reality aren't necessarily the same thing.

The real preference behind those laws is that owners of single family homes prefer to have their neighbors to be of similar economic status as them, which can be enforced by requiring everyone in a neighborhood to buy a minimum amount of land and housing to live there.

If single family homes are so preferred even when taking into account the tradeoffs in costs and other things, why must they be legally barred from protection from competition with multifamily homes in the majority of the land in our cities?