[deleted]

I also skimmed. Pretty neat!

He does mention the need for a sub

I can definitely see the appeal of a large minimalist flat panel speaker. My girlfriend probably wouldn't let me put speakers in the living room, but these she would like design wise.

Could you not hang it like a picture frame, so the string is hidden behind?

He says they cost $30 to make

Ever heard of physics? Don't need to hear it to know this. Tech can only compensate to a small degree.

Manufacturing a speaker isn’t worth it anymore if this works. Quality isn’t to be a subject if the words are understandable. Putting mfg and waste at the front of a decision on a feature. No need to build speakers in cars if these work good enough. It makes a traditional speaker obsolete.

[deleted]

Nice repost.

Check out what they are doing in Tokyo for example. I am talking about allowing more commercial and low industrial usage mixed in with residential.

I get the point of packing people as tightly together as possible and the issue of R1 having very few people paying for lots of roads and other infrastructure, driving communities into debt. (For real, how shit is this whole concept?)

But I don't think you need to go that far. Instead of everyone needing to drive 20km that way, it would already do a world of good if people had to go 2km in random directions.

Yes, this might or might not be problematic for mass transit. But you could use that to play around with different densities. Have more money? Get more land. Have less money? Get less land. But mix it up more as a whole.

I don't think you'll be able to turn north America into Amsterdam. (And trying to will get you lots of ideological pushback)

But maybe you don't have to. (This is assuming electric, maybe even autonomous, cars, renewable energy...) But just mixing things up a bit more would be a step in the right direction. Even if the rest stays the same.

Is this just figuring out a way to add extra carbon emissions in the middle of the build process?

What the hell are you talking about? lol

Now they can look how they sound

2 main factors:

1: supply/demand. Even a small apartment in a city is a pretty decent place to live due to proximity to all the city services.

2: real estate investment. Large investment groups purchase land as an investment. If they rent it out then there are many limits on how the property can be handled, modified, or sold due to renters protections. These limitations do not apply if kept empty. With the growth of services for short term rentals it has become practical to keep properties empty to take advantage of the greater liquidity and use short term rentals to help make up the difference.

“Bio based,” like oil?

How hard would it be to 3D print Hempcrete?

I mean, it's not structural, but certainly it could be extruded into the forms and compacted automatically, right?

A cheap Bose one.

Car manufacturers are missing a large untapped market here. They could start marketing their 100k luxury cars as affordable tiny home replacements given that the median new home sale price is now north of 400k. Just pop a 4K screen in for the windshield and add a coffee maker and you’re good to go.

Please see my edit, you no longer must buy a new home for primary residence sale. I believe you used to have to buy another.

Also fun is with investment property you can 1031 exchange and avoid any amount of capital gains indefinitely.

What sound bar do you use

Yeah they're going to have to design and tune parts of the car. Honestly it doesn't seem great; seems more likely to rattle and have weird characteristics at different volumes.

I will say, however, than the 'speakers' on the surface pro are kind of crazy. Pretty much all portable devices these days use the device itself to resonate. Not sure who the first one to do it was, but I'm honestly kind of a shocked at how good the sound is on that device, when it's being driven by these little things.

If there's a difference in prices, due to moving to a cheaper area?

I have used similar speakers for certain designs - really depends on what you put them on - both in terms of material and geometry.

>the rapid rise in home prices can benefit existing owners when they sell and leave the area.

Again, once.

In the long run, even existing owners (who are younger, and still looking to upsize rather than downsize) get screwed, as well as everyone who doesn't currently own a home and rents.

Not coincidentally this latter group is disproportionately poor, brown, and young. All groups conservatives love to screw over.

Capital gains does not apply up to 500k if gain for a married couple to primary residence sales if a replacement home is purchased.

Edit: looks like you no longer must buy a new home, any primary residence sale is eligible if you lived in it for 2 years.

Not until they can 3D print land in desirable areas.

>Exactly my point.

Wasn't clear, I guess?

I thought you were shrugging off the clear and evident need for higher density zoning to deal with the housing crisis with the "ughhh, just pave over more green space" (which I find particularly grating, as besides being concerned about the housing crisis, I am also a hiker and an Environmentalist) argument.

Higher density also helps save the planet from Climate Change (in addition to sprawl directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere through soil mineralization and loss of trees), because while it's impossible to service endless R-1 sprawl with a Mass Transit system good enough people will actually use it over driving, without insanely-large subsidies, it's perfectly doable in denser development.

Particularly when combined with Mixed Use Zoning, this can help move things towards where more people are willing to forego owning a car altogether, in favor of Mass Transit (which right now is rare, and exposes you to immense cultural discrimination...)

🙄