Linkage

Some world-class hand-wringing going on in Washington. Take that, fascism! We are resolute in our misgivings about supporting you every step of the way!

The 2025 NDAA, which authorizes an astronomical military budget of $895 billion, contains numerous policy items including a 4.5% pay raise across the board, a more substantial 14.5% raise for junior service members, and over $600 million in military funding for Israel. It also includes multiple sections that would place new restrictions on gender-affirming medical care for military families on government TRICARE health plans, the military’s health insurance program for active duty members. Under Sections 708 and 709 of the bill, no Department of Defense funds or facilities may be used to “perform or facilitate sex change surgeries,” and TRICARE plans may not provide hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or “other medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” to anyone under 18. (Right-wing sources have increasingly pushed false and misleading claims that puberty blockers and hormones lead to sterilization.) Another section would prohibit the Department of Defense from establishing any new positions “relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” or from adding those responsibilities to existing DoD positions.

On Wednesday, members of the House approved the NDAA in a 281-140 vote, CBS reported. 81 Democrats voted in favor of the budget, while 16 Republicans voted against it. The bill will now be sent to the Senate for another vote.

Normally, party leaders “whip” members into voting one way or another based on their party’s collective goals — but House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said he would not whip Democratic votes for or against the NDAA on Wednesday, even though the bill contains overtly anti-trans policy (for the second year in a row). “We’re not whipping on the National Defense Authorization Act. It’s a member-to-member, case-by-case analysis in terms of people making decisions as to what is the right thing to do,” Jeffries told reporters ahead of the vote, according to The Hill. Jeffries added that the bill contains “a lot of positive things” but “some troubling provisions in a few areas, as well.” The New York representative slammed Republican extremism in a press conference on Wednesday, but also told reporters that he and his party “are ready, willing and able to find bipartisan common ground with the incoming administration on any issue.” Jeffries was among the 81 Democrats who voted in favor of the NDAA on Wednesday.

[…] 

In a series of Bluesky posts on Wednesday, Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott called the gender-affirming care ban “reprehensible” and called on Republicans to “prioritize national security and servicemembers, not culture wars,” but voted in favor of the bill that day. As The Hill reporter Brooke Migdon observed, 50 other Democrats who signed a September letter denouncing the NDAA’s anti-LGBTQ+ provisions voted to advance it this week.

Late last year, the company introduced a new framework to enforce an efficiency rate for picking of 100%. Workers who weren’t meeting the standard would be put into a coaching program. Some were directed to “stop all time wasting and non-productive behaviors”, according to warning letters seen by Guardian Australia. Failure to improve could lead to disciplinary action and even loss of employment. One worker described it as a “bullying” tactic.

Tim, who is over 60, said he was pushed to improve his rating. He got it to more than 80%, then 90%, then 100%, he said, but in his effort to work harder, faster, he was injured.

“You might get someone that’s … 20 years old and goes to the gym every day. And someone like me. I’m getting the average between him and me,” Tim said. “Obviously, I can’t keep up with him.”

“We’re going down the same path as Amazon,” said another worker, Ross*. “We’re not robots, we’re humans.”

I remember when Nat and Miguel announced the Hula project, and thought it was basically benign. There seems to be a demand for that sort of stuff, even though no productivity tool had ever made the slightest improvement to my productivity for some reason (ADHD? Moi?), so it wasn't scratching an itch I had, but if it led to more free software users, hooray. Then I read this. It's a classic; still as relevant as ever.

 Today Nat announced this new calendar server project called Hula, and I've got a funny story about that.

Nat was in town, and he stopped by to say hi and chat, and he said, "So we've got this big pile of code we're going to release, and we're going to build an open source groupware system! It's going to be awesome!"

And I said, "Jesus Mother of Fuck, what are you thinking! Do not strap the 'Groupware' albatross around your neck! That's what killed Netscape, are you insane?" He looked at me like I'd just kicked his puppy. 

[…]

Netscape 4 was a really crappy product. We had built this really nice entry-level mail reader in Netscape 2.0, and it was a smashing success. Our punishment for that success was that management saw this general-purpose mail reader and said, "since this mail reader is popular with normal people, we must now pimp it out to `The Enterprise', call it Groupware, and try to compete with Lotus Notes!" 

[…]

 "Groupware" is all about things like "workflow", which means, "the chairman of the committee has emailed me this checklist, and I'm done with item 3, so I want to check off item 3, so this document must be sent back to my supervisor to approve the fact that item 3 is changing from `unchecked' to `checked', and once he does that, it can be directed back to committee for review."

Nobody cares about that shit. Nobody you'd want to talk to, anyway. 

We mapped the extent to which researchers and advocates have been subject to intimidation tactics by tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food (UPF) companies and their associates. The tactics described include being descredited in public, legal threats, complaints, nefarious use of Freedom of Information legislation, surveillance, cyberattacks, bribery and even physical violence.

[…]

The scale of intimidation we have found is likely to be the tip of the iceberg. Many will be too scared to publicly reveal that they have been intimidated because of their work.

We found widespread intimidation across the three sectors, perpetrated by corporations themselves and their third parties. In the most serious forms of intimidation, the perpetrators remained unknown.

Really punchy 20m intro to the Robert Putnam / Ray Oldenburg thing from Mike Pasternock at Strong Towns.

People are lonely. Is it because we are addicted to our phones, or is that a symptom of larger design choices we made when building our places? We cover some of the general concepts related to social infrastructure an try to evaluate what to do next.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said the refusal or withdrawal of HRT for trans patients raised “ethical and clinical” concerns.

“Hormones should not be stopped for political reasons or in the absence of a recognised medical issue,” a spokesperson told TBIJ. “If GPs are withdrawing prescriptions despite recommendations, this could result in negative impacts on patients' mental and physical wellbeing.”

[…]

The issue appears to reflect a wider rollback of access to gender-affirming healthcare in the wake of April’s publication of the controversial Cass Review into health services for trans young people. This review claimed that the evidence base of using puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones for young people was “weak”. Some of the same medicines are used in adult care.

The review did not recommend a ban on puberty blockers but resulted in one for young people experiencing gender dysphoria (they are still permitted for children experiencing early puberty). The ban was extended by the new Labour government in August. Adult gender services are now also under review.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said the refusal or withdrawal of HRT for trans patients raised “ethical and clinical” concerns.

“Hormones should not be stopped for political reasons or in the absence of a recognised medical issue,” a spokesperson told TBIJ. “If GPs are withdrawing prescriptions despite recommendations, this could result in negative impacts on patients' mental and physical wellbeing.”

Puberty blockers delay the onset of puberty, but don’t necessarily result in a measurable effect at the time they are taken. The main impact is seen when people are older. The physical effects of a puberty that does not match a person’s gender can have serious negative consequences for transgender adults.

In my role as a GP, I regularly hear from transgender adults (who have not had puberty blockers) struggling with distress related to bodily changes which occurred during puberty.

I have met people who don’t speak because their deep voice causes others to make incorrect assumptions about their gender. Some harm themselves or avoid leaving the house because of the distress caused by their breasts. Others seek costly surgical treatments.

This is when the benefits of maintaining equitable access to puberty blockers for those who need them become obvious. People are seeking hormones, surgery and mental health support for changes which could have been prevented by using puberty blockers when they were younger.

The ministry’s position statement recommends that puberty blockers are prescribed by health professionals who have expertise in this area, with input from interdisciplinary colleagues.

In my experience this describes how puberty blockers are currently being prescribed in New Zealand. Clinicians are already cautious in their prescribing. They work with multidisciplinary input to best support the young person and their family. They recognise the importance of mental health and family support for young people. 

In 1994, the ten largest builders had just 10% of the national market. By 2018, the top ten builders had a little less than a third. Partly this consolidation is due to a credit crunch. During the financial crisis from 2007-2012, 55% of residential developers disappeared. There were also post-crisis mergers, like Pulte Homes and Centex, Lennar and CalAtlantic, Tri Pointe and Weyerhauser, and so forth, but many of the acquisitions these days are smaller roll-ups, like D.R. Horton buying an Arkansas specialty builder Riggins Custom Homes, Gulf Coast builder Truland Homes, or lot developer Forestar Group, or Lennar acquiring developer WCI Communities. Analysts are projecting 2024 to be another strong year for M&A.

Of course, such numbers understate consolidation; national shares matter very little, since housing is local, and concentration is higher when you get to local levels. In Miami-Fort Lauderdale, for instance, Lennar has 47% of the market for new homes, in Los Angeles, D.R. Horton has about a third. As economist Luis Quintero noted in a paper, 60% of local markets are now “highly concentrated,” a new phenomenon. In 25 of the top 82 markets, one builder controls at least 25% of the market. That’s 60% of the housing markets in “Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and western Pennsylvania.”

[…]

So why all the consolidation? And more importantly, why hasn’t the number of builders bounced back? If margins are up, why aren’t there new entrants coming in to take profit and share? To answer this question I started by reading a bunch of investor documents from the big homebuilders. And I realized that to call these businesses “homebuilders” is misleading. It’s striking how little of their business has to do with, well, building. For instance, here’s D.R. Horton in 2023: “Substantially all of our land development and home construction work is performed by subcontractors.” Here’s Lennar in 2023: “We use independent subcontractors for most aspects of land development and home construction.” I suspect most of the other big guys would say something similar. These aren’t builders, they are financiers that borrow cheaper than real developers and use that cheap credit to speculate in land, hiring contractors to do the work. They are, in other words, middlemen.

Local homebuilding markets have become highly concentrated in the past decade. We document this increase in concentration and use IV regressions to show that it has led to lower production volume, fewer units in the production pipeline, and greater unit price volatility. These results are consistent with a theoretical model in which oligopolistic firms strategically set the timing, volume, and price of their new construction. Our estimates imply that market concentration has decreased the annual value of housing production nationwide by $106 billion. These findings provide further evidence that the secular decline in competitive intensity is altering macroeconomic dynamics .

In the US, housing policy distinctively subsidizes homeownership. Most notably in the form of the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction, federal policy benefits owners much more than tenants. Climate policy is no different. In public or cooperative housing models, the government or cooperative serves as the landlord or property manager, and therefore has more direct influence over the fate of property conditions. In much of the private market, by contrast—which is where the vast majority of tenants find housing—the federal government sees its role as less direct. Tenants in many multifamily properties have no direct method of contracting for services; many do not know who owns the real estate. The IRA’s focus on incentives and credits for landlords maintains this property relationship.

The fact that about one in three housing units are occupied by tenants raises questions about the effects such climate tax incentives will have on owners of rental property. The Biden Administration has emphasized the importance of channeling these funds to “disadvantaged communities,” maintaining that about 40 percent of funds should go toward low-income households, 10 percent of which should go toward multi-family households. However, the facts of ownership leave open a stubborn question: will landlord spending on climate retrofits—a condition for receiving public funds—alter existing financial terms between tenants and landlords?