>Especially in North America there is more than enough land.

Not where the jobs are.

Not within a reasonable commute of it, anyways, since the same zoning commissions that that put R1 everywhere also don't zone nearly enough land for business purposes in the suburbs- so there are no jobs there and people have to commute two hours into the city center from the outermost ring of development in some areas already...

Not sure if it's the exact video the other guy was talking about but this guy and his other speaker videos come to mind.

[removed]

Everything sells sooner of later, if it's in a region with a decent jobs market (makn driver of Denand), since there's an enormous national housing shortage in areas with jobs.

This last caveat is important, since there's PLENTY of rundown, decrepit housing in the Rust Belt that will never sell since half the manufacturing jobs there moved overseas, the rest were automated, and they're never coming back.

Those are huge dude. Literally just a speaker with none of the housing etc. The LG one is 2.5mm thick.

Exactly.

If there weren't artificial scarcity of housing due to NIMBY Zoning Laws against denser development (which can mean just duplexes and single units built closer together: it doesn't even mean apartments most of the time, although that's often where density SHOULD be) then higher profits would lead to more companies entering the construction business, and more business for existing firms... More housing would be built, and the shortage would wane.

But because of the artificial scarcity of land created by zoning laws, lower construction costs just equate to TEMPORARY profit increases for builders, and no actual increase in construction (because there's nowhere to actually build more homes much of the time, they wait for the rare upcoming or release of undeveloped land...)

Temporary, because eventually the higher profits just lead to land prices going up, once landowners realize they can now sell land (or rather, old houses to be torn down and replaced with newer ones, in many cases) for more money and the builders can now afford it.

Since every homeowner had to buy the home at some point, homeowners don't really profit either, after a small group selling at the right time profits off the small spike in land costs due to cheaper construction, as they're eventually saddled with even more enormous mortgages...

The only group that profits off this in the really long run, are the banks that give out mortgages for ever more expensive homes...

I'm not sure how much it costs spaceX with their reusable rockets (and given that Musk is in charge, I would bet that he never did achieve the multiple orders of magnitude cheaper costs he promised), but prior to the space shuttle cost per kg into space was $18,500. After the space shuttle, $54,500/kg.

Everything not directly a part of profits in capitalism in an externality.

>And suddenly houses become affordable

Except they definitely won't.

Because the issues isn't construction costs. It's artificial scarcity created by Zoning Laws that say you have to put that new home on a much bigger plot of land (of which there is only so much in a give area) or you can't build it at all. Meanwhile, taller buildings with more units are also outlawed by zoning in most areas.

Because land isn't an elastic good- there's no way to make more of it just because its price goes up: this means people can charge basically as much as buyers can afford for it. There isn't real competition.

The only way to solve this problem is to relax zoning laws to the point where it's possible to build more housing in areas where it is currently in high Demand than there is demand for it. Which means smaller lots for single-family homes and allowing duplexes and mid-rise apartments in a lot more areas, basically.

Until then, all this research into new construction techniques may be good for the environment (since most of the new technologies are "green") but it won't do diddly-squat for housing prices. The issue is artificial scarcity, not production prices.

The actual cost of BUILDING a home (and not the cost of acquiring land and then permits- another source of artificial costs) and THEN building on it is usually a very small fraction of the price new homes of that size and quality actually sell for in an area.

Combustion is still the most energy efficient.

And Nuclear would be more efficient if they allowed refacing/recycling the rods.

Believe me- the MOCVD toll is huge and does play a factor. We don’t pay attention to cradle to grave, and it’s absurd not to. (Used to be the thing to do- for example for plastics- why ignore it for solar and wind?)

Audiophiles: the black leather seats sound so much better than the brown ones.

I had a vibration based speaker as a kid which operates on the same technology. Anything coming into contact with the surface immediately made the sound quality shit. Wonder if they've fixed that here

Yah, I don't care about their *speakers if they aren't willing to make a video showing what they can do lol.

Uh, no. A lot of things have changed.

Shingles are different materials, and they can now produce power if you really, really want them to.

Concrete formulae have changed to set faster and more consistently. Modern concretes are also much less corrosive to internal metallic reinforcement, the alloys of which have also improved.

Wood frames are chemically stabilized, and the geometry has changed to support increasing levels of internal conduits and wires. I even have a built-in pest-control system in mine.

Insulation is dramatically more effective and less dangerous upon exposure. Window glass has lower thermal conductivity and is less brittle. Some of it even borders on flexible.

Nail guns are now a handheld device. Even the nails themselves have changed, and there are specialized nails that can do everything from hold a roof on during a hurricane or come apart at a specified force.

None of this even begins to touch the advancements in adhesives and sealants. Environmental compatibility alone is leaps and bounds past the 1950s or even the 1990s.

Like it or not… “cApItAlIsM bAd” is a pretty hollow worldview.

percentage of houses that would benefit from a firefighter on the roof in its lifetime: 0.000001%.

percentage of houses that would benefit from maximizing solar panels: 99.999%

we're holding back billions in energy savings just in case a firefighter needs to get on the roof. a thing that almost never happens.

Came here to say this. We've basically circled back around to wood houses.

Welcome to my e home. It cost a million dollars and is biodegradable.

Lots of things have changed with the homes, window and door builds, insulation, flooring materials, electrical systems, heating / cooling / hot water systems, appliances, framing systems in many homes, etc…

Often new things are invented with little benefit to gain, but when something offers great benefit they get adopted.

Yeah that's a problem with new technology for engineering something that should last multiple life times is you aren't going to see a proof of concept.

> And at just 30% of the weight and 10% of the thickness of conventional car speakers, this can open up all kinds of options for placement, which will lead to a more immersive sound experience, while also freeing up space inside door panels and other traditional automotive speaker placement locations.

Wouldn’t this just rattle the shit out the internal parts and cause issues down the road? No pun intended

Could come in at a key moment, it most likely won't though.

Let me just hook up dual exciters to my cone shaped wall panels.

No, it works in their favor.

But I am curious how you think it works in mine, please explain

It's called suburbs. Economically urban with excessively low density. Half an acre is a modest exaggeration, but in some wealthy suburbs it is standard.

[removed]