> That’s because it’s easier to recruit kids into cults or whatever
That's what Sunday School is for.
I lived in SF at the time of the original burns on Baker Beach and heard about them but I was too lame and isolated to ever participate but followed their antics (and the Cacophony Society) from afar.
The universe arranged for me to go ten years ago and I found the experience magical. There's an exhibit that shows how each wave of newcomers has destroyed burning man which I found to be a cheeky take on its evolution.
The kids I saw there were doing kid friendly stuff and them being allowed there was clearly to allow their parents to come without having to leave them behind.
There's plenty to hate about it but in the end it's about people coming together to have a good time, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Sorry, but no. That's a key reason why the religious folk hate public education at the college level: that exposure tends to help previously indoctrinated kids recognize that they have been in a cult and they leave it.
As for K-12, their hatred is that the public version is competition for their private education which is fully intended to indoctrinate them into their particular flavor of religion.
I'm not saying this to be combative -- it's all publicly stated.
The only combative thing here is using the word "cult" to describe a mainstream religion, and even that is because people get offended by that rendering rather than it not being the case.
The question is why people build new on known dangerous places. The new is an important word. They do because the future is not priced in (make insurance mandatory?) and because of acts of corruption that actively promote/incentivize development in hazardous areas by rewriting zoning, repricing permits, rewriting saner policies.
Some people's job is building new houses to sell them. Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas. Usually there is no point working unless it's for money so take your guess.
BTW, I can't build anything in half of my garden unless I also build huge concrete structures to anchor the terrain, which maybe would make matters worse. My house has been there for about 100 years, the other houses too, maybe it's stable enough but often they allow what's already there and deny anything new. Anyway, it's fine, I don't want to build something there.
> Your question is why they are allowed to build in some areas
No that is not my question at all. In fact I don't have a question, I have a position.
My position is that population density in many of these super dangerous areas is because of corruption laced government policies and practices. The government follows these policies in concert with builders because they can knowingly profit from endangering people (i) in dire straits, (ii) people who are not informed about magnitude of the risks.
In addition to that their corrupt practices distort the market prices so that people end up suckered. If these corrupt practices were to stop or reduce and better more people friendly policies were followed then these place will not become uninhabited but plausible less populated. If you look at my other comments on this story you will get more details of my position.
Some people are in such dire straits that they may still agree to stay in a hazard equivalent to living on Chernobyl lands. Some who are more fortunate would take other options should the government be doing their job.
And most of this "well obviously nobody should build anywhere where there will be serious destruction every couple generations" type sentiment ultimately just to funnels wealth and power to whoever took that good land previously.
If there is serious distruction every couple of generations it happens either to you or to your children. So, do you really want to build our buy there? If it happened to your parents there is no you.
That's not quite it. Its about policies that take into account the cost of future events and balance it against the ease of building. The future needs to be priced in, in today's prices.
Regulations (for example, you cannot build unless and insurer is willing to insure your property against known local hazards) and enforcing the regulations can make that happen. Often we move in the other direction by adopting policies that encourages mispricing.
Do you have evidence that engineers create more economic growth? HN is a bit biased of course, and general reactionary culture is biased against humanities. But generally engineers have a bit of a ceiling on their careers. Management, leadership, and roles in society depend more on what you learn in the humanities.
> Ukraine was used as a pawn to anger Russia. What did Russia try to do and continue to do so?
Ukraine is a sovereign country, free to decide for themselves which military and economic bloc best suits them.
Russia rolled tanks into Ukraine after denying they were planning to attack, airdropped special forces into Kyiv after denying they were planning to attack, repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons even though they're not willing to admit to being at war and Ukraine doesn't have nukes, tried to assassinate then candidate-PM Yushchenko in 2004, annexed Crimea, committed a bunch of warcrimes while doing so, and they did all this even though Ukraine only gave up its nuclear arsenal under the condition that its sovereignty would be respected.
> Canada has been used as a pawn to threaten America by China, and Canada is trying to pivot from the USA to China?
Canada's primary pivot is away from the USA, not towards China, e.g. Canada also deepening ties with the EU.
