This is the reason I think the 'AI' angle of the post is less interesting than how he came to understand the power dynamics and strategy of the situation. Maybe AI helped him reach that point, but it could easily have been a lawyer friend or family member playing that role
Higher density is more economically efficient for local authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example discouraging car use.
Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas. higher density only benefits developers who can now get revenue on the N plots of land they converted from 1.
My first job was with a pharmaceutical manufacturer, I wouldn't go back to those type of institutions, healing materials need to be handled way differently.
I don't think I would do very well working for an oil company either but I did end up in oilfield services for a while, even though my motivation is completely toward alternative energy.
One of the interesting things I noticed was that the toxic atmosphere of the refinery enviromnent began to be abated quite a bit earlier than the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1990, largely due to the newer oil company employees being more aware of their position in a lucrative industry which could actually afford to operate more cleanly. To the extent the more environmentally-aware employees have had an impact, in hindsight it appears to be more effective than the actual regulations were.
You should have smelled it before.
And I know what kind of materials I am smelling.
Sometimes more effective change can be made from the inside.
Note "within cycling commute of work". So for a lot of people that means zones 1-2. You would end up paying around what I mentioned for anything decent.
