BlameThePeacock

There are studies on that, but they're not super relevant because the appropriate amount of space is determined by how many people want to live somewhere, not based on the specific size.

People are willing to live in smaller places the closer they are to amenities. It's a gradient, not a single value even for each location.

I'll repeat again, I don't need a fucking tax cut. I need the price of housing to start going down.

Increase taxes on property significantly, and use 100% of that money to give everyone a basic income.

This incentivizes both people and developers to be efficient with their housing choices. Using too much housing for the area you live in? You pay extra to help out everyone. Using the right amount? No harm to you. Using less than the average? Here's a payout, thank you.

Prices overall will drop, because it's no longer profitable to simply own a home due to the taxes, and especially not if there's no people in it because the taxes won't be offset by the basic income.

This concept is simply false.

If my house price fell by 50%, I would owe more on my mortgage than the house is worth.

This would affect me negatively in multiple ways, not the least of which may mean me losing my home as the bank would not want to renew my mortgage.

I agree that housing prices need to fall, and actually by more than 50% but it needs to happen over time or it will literally crash the entire economy.

Instant pot

I have two, and I cook in them 3-4 times per week for my family

Even something as simple as suggesting "Hey, these figures are made in Vietnam instead of China, so they're lower cost right now" is political. It is, as you said unavoidable.

Other people had already responded with answers that fit the specific question prior to me responding. I was just adding an additional possibility to consider.

The problem is that they're actively impacting your ability to participate in many hobbies, or eating up funds on necessities that force you to forgo other things entirely. It's not that we're just repeating "tariffs bad" when talking about them, it's that they're actually factoring into decisions being made in order to live our life.

You're saying that people who are old can't learn or be taught how to use a modern communications tool. Who's really being ageist here?

My 70 year old father can handle most things on his cellphone with just a few minutes of someone walking him through it.

Also, as of 2023, only 10% of the world population is over 65, so between the fact that there aren't actually that many old people and some of them definitely CAN operate modern technology, it's a good solution for most situations.

Those are often right.

People frequently aren't asking the right questions because they are thinking inside a box that doesn't need to exist.

Sometimes there are legitimate reasons why these options don't work, but most of the time they are the superior choice.

Both of those first two studies (the third one is not a study) say that there's actually not a significant harm, especially just for nudity.

Not to mention the fact that they're both really old (pre-2000) and based on data collected from the 1970s to the 1990s and pre-date home internet access and only from data collected in the US(actually only in 3 cities in California)