https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/15/self-deportation-email-citizen-immigration-lawyer

Isn’t that one “weird west?”

The title has a spelling mistake. It’s “faschy,” not “flashy.”

Can I hook a Wii Balance Board to it to track my weight?

You know what the rich really want?, consumption. They want you buying as much as possible because that’s the way we get growth and it also makes it so you have less savings and are more dependent on your job, and less likely to make demands or quit.

This isn’t too bad, but it’s disqualified because the daughter delivers the punchline.

Sigh… Better get out the ol’ PSA:

Don’t Date Robots!

Not being bleak and dreary was the one thing I liked better about Oblivion, compared to Morrowind or Skyrim.

I’m calling it now: they’re pursuing federal charges so that they can get him into federal custody and then rendition him to CECOT.

Everybody knows he’s enough of a public hero that there’s 0% of him getting convicted by a jury, so the fascists are taking steps to destroy him without one.

For a minute there I thought there was Chris, Chris, and Brian and that a table of Vikings was about to start chanting “Krebs!”

wa’, cha’, wej, loS, vagh, jav, Soch, chorgh, Hut, wa’maH

(I can also do English, Latin, Spanish, French, and Japanese.)

You mean Brian Krebs?

I’m not sure there was much new build that would fit this criteria in the 80’s or 90’s.

Or the '50s, '60s, or '70s. Maybe not even the '40s.

And that’s the problem: because it was illegal to build for like half a century, there’s a huge pent-up demand unmet by supply, and that’s what makes it very often inaccessible as per the meme.

Arts & Crafts also developed into the ornate art styles of Art Nouveau and Art Deco.

Those are still modernism! They may be more ornate than than a Mondrian painting or something, but they sure aren’t “ball and claw foot” ornate.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arts_and_Crafts_movement :

Some consider that it is the root of the Modern Style, a British expression of what later came to be called the Art Nouveau movement.[4] Others consider that it is the incarnation of Art Nouveau in England.[5]

Also, for that matter, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau :

The term Art Nouveau was first used in the 1880s in the Belgian journal L’Art Moderne to describe the work of Les Vingt, twenty painters and sculptors seeking reform through art. The name was popularized by the Maison de l’Art Nouveau (‘House of the New Art’), an art gallery opened in Paris in 1895 by the Franco-German art dealer Siegfried Bing. In Britain, the French term Art Nouveau was commonly used, while in France, it was often called by the term Style moderne (akin to the British term Modern Style), or Style 1900.[9] In France, it was also sometimes called Style Jules Verne (after the novelist Jules Verne), Style Métro (after Hector Guimard’s iron and glass subway entrances), Art Belle Époque, or Art fin de siècle.[10]

Art Nouveau is known by different names in different languages: Jugendstil in German, Stile Liberty in Italian, Modernisme in Catalan, and also known as the Modern Style in English.

***edit: why tf am I being downvoted for sharing objective fact about the Arts & Crafts movements at the turn of the century?

My guess is that it’s because Arts & Crafts is a foundational form of modernism and is thus kinda the opposite, stylistically speaking, of carving ornate feet like OP pictured.

It would not be “easy!” You would be severely limited in your choice of location due to lack of availability compared to other housing types, and what places you do manage to find would have an inflated cost per square foot compared to other housing types because they’re bid up by demand outstripping supply.

Maybe there are certain cities where it’s common enough to be “easy” in that particular city, but you can definitely not extrapolate that to claim that it’s easy on average in the US as a whole.

That’s possible, but not a given. Unfortunately, it would be complicated to calculate (and perhaps not even possible unless Chicago’s GIS system has good data for how many housing units are in those Planned Developments).

Even then, Chicago is probably close to a best-case scenario, not representative of the norm.

And they build new ones all the time in cities across the US.

I don’t think you fully understand or appreciate the fact that roughly sometime between the 1920s and 1950s mixed-use building was almost entirely outlawed almost everywhere except central business districts, and only recently (in the last decade or so) started getting allowed to be built in many places again.

And that’s only in some cities and towns, not all of them. Some of the more backwards places still haven’t gotten the memo, so your sentence is flat-out untrue. There are definitely cities that still do not allow mixed-use today.

Second, even in the cities that have recently begun routinely allowing mixed-use again, they’re not building it anywhere nearly fast enough to make a dent in the huge, 50+ years worth, of pent-up demand.

There is absolutely nothing that stops him from owning one of those stores and living over it.

Except the the fact that fewer of those housing units exist than the number of people who want to live in them.

Have you never played musical chairs? Not everybody gets to live in places like this; some people lose.

It is most certainly not “mostly not allowed”.

Again, “most” residential areas are zoned single family only. Being zoned single family means mixed use is “not allowed,” because zoning defines what is and isn’t allowed and mixed use is different than single family. Mixed use is “mostly not allowed” because most residentially-zoned areas do not allow mixed use. The concept of being legally prevented from building mixed use in an area not zoned for it is called it being “not allowed,” and that applies to “most” areas. Hence, mixed use is “mostly not allowed.” You are “not allowed” to build mixed use in areas not zoned for it, and “most” areas are not zoned for it.

How many more times do I have to restate it before you comprehend what words mean?

Now who is overblowing their position? One building?

It was your fucking strawman argument in the first place! Don’t blame me for taking your argument to it’s absurd conclusion!

It’s not, even in Chicago.

41.1% of land area is single-family only. Mixed-use, non-single-family + planned development is 33.8% of land area. The majority of residential land area in Chicago is zoned single-family only.

Update: Down voted, but no response. Sad.

Okay, asshole, you want a response? Fine. Let’s go back to the initial premise of the thread:

They won’t let you live that Bob’s Burgers life!

When I was a kid, I dreamed about owning a store and living above it. When I was a little older, someone told me that’s mostly not allowed because of something called “zoning,” which I trusted must be a good reason.

Imagine my horror upon learning that it’s NOT a good reason!

Key phrase: “mostly not allowed”

You claim that “the person in the post doesn’t have a clue WTF they are talking about” because “most towns have at least one building that is mixed use.”

You really think one measly building per town is enough to be a counterexample to "mostly not allowed? That’s just fucking objectively ludicrous, end of!