Yeah, that's a really good point that I hadn't really considered. Although, maybe the same argument stands? If X's lockdown leads to less users, then doesn't that translate to less control over the information landscape too?
Well, if one of the big social media platforms is now a far-right playground, that changes the political landscape.
Elon Musk is using twitter to create a global far-right platform that right-wing politicians can use to experiment with talking points before watering them down and bringing them to the public.
Yep precisely it. Worth it to control the narrative, even if it's for his own vanity. When you have that much money what else do you spend it on. X is a toy.
It has been interesting to me how AI has for many years given people a way to justify any worst case scenario. Nothing is too far-fetched if at any step you tell yourself the AI will be smarter than you, and thus be able to solve any conceivable obstacle. Oh, if only intelligence were the only bottleneck to power.
It is actually: knowledge, intelligence, communication, and a form of secrecy.
A single intelligent person is bounded in its reach by the network of people they can form around them and by which important/powerful people they can influence either directly or indirectly.
The idea behind the AI breakout is that it’s intelligence is maybe limited, but it will be able to quickly spread and covertly bring many devices into its influence. We already have the tools for formally letting agents talk to each other so it can also create a topology of agents that consists of cells where need to know is applied etc.
There are many forms of power some more obvious, say nation leaders, versus more silent powers such as career politicians or wealthy families or people controlling the media and thence the flow of information.
Montenegro unilaterally uses the euro and it doesn't seem to otherwise be a failed state. Besides this being a "marker", what do you think are the actual problems caused? Like why does a small country need its own capital controls when there is a very stable currency available nearby?
The reason for your own currency is you can set your own interest rates to fit your local economy. If you are in a local recession while others are doing well you might want lower interest rates, while others need them higher. Both places are trying to make the same balance of inflation vs stimulating the economy - but they need different answers.
I'm not convinced it is worth it. Generally world economies are tightly tied anyway and so what is right for large currencies is close enough for everybody. The less coupled you are to the world the more important it is that you can be different.
Where would one ever read that Go is not memory safe? That's just a false claim, and anyone believing it would have probably gone out of business regardless of choice of programming language.
> Go's internal data structures like interface values, slice headers, hash tables, and string headers are not immune to data races, so type and memory safety can be violated in multithreaded programs that modify shared instances of those types without synchronization.[113][114]
Nobody serious claims Go is fully memory safe. Here's Russ Cox telling you concurrency is a hole in the memory safety: https://research.swtch.com/gorace
By a strict definition of memory safety it isn't - you can tear two-pointer-wide values using data races and cause arbitrary memory issues if you try to using only normal code.
It's close enough for most purposes... but it isn't.
My ex-boss was a JS guy and then moved over to Rust. He loathed Go because it has pointers and it's possible to use a nil pointer if you are not competent.
JS is fine for what and where it is, Rust is fine too. I just appreciate the stupid simple nature of Go and it does the job just fine.
And how would you control for the causal possibility that those who will eventually develop Alzheimer's early on might tend to have undetectable memory issues that prevent them from becoming taxi drivers in the first place? You can't control for profession, since that's behind the very claim itself.
Its even worse than that, i can imagine people with undiagnosed early Alzheimer's self selecting for car accidents and cardiac issues through additional stress of mental fatigue while their brain tried to compensate for loss of function.
So you have people self selecting out of the profession, self selecting for early death within the profession, and on top of that, a general life expectancy discrepancy that is near impossible to adjust for.
Fewer car accident deaths, leading to more elderly people, which inevitably means a higher population of people with Alzheimers.
(Unless people highly predisposed to dying in car accidents are also highly predisposed to mudering people who will have, but don’t yet have, Alzheimers. But that seems sufficiently unlikely for the purposes of this hypothetical.)
Jokes aside, the serious answer depends on whether the link is causative or merely collerative.
I'm still waiting on someone unbiased to study the data and tell me something. Those who have obvious biases tell me self driving cars are good, but their bias makes them suspect sources. So far I've not found someone without an obvious bias who had the data and is talking.
At one point the amount of human induced accidents will increase since no human can account for sudden erratic brakes of a self driver, even though it predicted a correct incoming accident with another V2V connected car.
Property taxes have a component that redistributes wealth from landlords to the working people, but it also has a component that penalizes making better use of the land. The former is usually called "land value tax" and the latter is the part of the tax that is proportional to the improved value of the land. The latter part incentivizes some uncertain amount more towards mcmansions and away from multi-unit buildings.
Property tax also encourages speculators to hold and trade underutilized parcels compared to land value tax. With property tax, the penalty for holding an empty parking lot in a dense urban center is much lower than under a land value tax system.
That’s one approach, but then you get people playing with the system, adding a single apartment to the multimillion dollar lot, or the aforementioned parking lot (technically a business). The great thing about LVT is that it bypasses these shell games. The biggest weakness is that you have to fight off any attempt to seize control of the valuation process, and that is going to be difficult except in places with highly engaged and intelligent voters.
It might, but it’s going to be politically difficult to navigate and maintain. The tradeoff of increasingly complex rules/taxes versus a straightforward (but you have to get valuation right) method like LVT is that complex tax schemes inevitably end up with loopholes or exceptions thanks to lobbying and political connections. In the rare cases where airtight rules are passed, those are often added later as “incentives” or other dealmaking. No free lunches in politics.
Not simply "don't want to live here", usually also "can't, there are no opportunities for income here". I know lots of people optimistic that remote work would upend this, but even the few still-fully-remote workers I know need to live in areas where they or their family can find non-remote jobs if ever necessary.
It's not even just wanting jobs for family; it's wanting to be around services that I think people don't always consider. Sure, you could plan on doing everything yourself if that's truly your hobby, but most remote workers will want to be able to call a plumber or an electrician when something goes wrong, and even finding tradesmen in those locations can sometimes be challenging.
The clawing back of remote jobs is pretty astounding. More places are 3 days a week I guess. But the idea of living out in the country with no one around, but with your remote job is nearly fantasy. You have to be very sure that if push comes to shove, you won't ever be laid off, fired, company closes, etc.
Or...that you would be comfortable relocating if you did lose your job, helped by the buffer of savings you accumulated by not having to pay for your house?
Now let's say the price collapses by 50%. You're stuck and can't sell in a "frozen" housing market... like how the housing market has been since May 2022. And the problem is structural. And it's only going to get worse as interest rates continue to rise to battle inflation. Here's a nice explainer.
The assumption for a couple of generations has been that housing costs will always increase over time as a percent of wages. The problem with that is that it's unsustainable. The next generation has to be able to afford it in order to buy it, and they also need to buy food and utilities etc., which also cost more when real estate does. Investors can't save you either when the next generation can't afford the rent they would have to charge to turn a profit.
But in order for housing to be a good investment, it has to have competitive returns with other investments, i.e. it needs to increase by at least as much as GDP per capita. Meanwhile median wages have been increasing slower than GDP per capita, which as above is the long-term cap on housing prices. In other words, housing can't long-term sustainably beat other market investments unless wages do, which they haven't, in which case people would get better returns by putting their money in stocks etc.
Worse, years of ZIRP inflated housing prices beyond any sustainable level even with the scarcity being maintained by existing zoning restrictions, i.e. the "eventually it's not sustainable" point is already in the past.
The result is that in order for housing to be a good investment going forward from now, there would first have to be a major housing crash so that "investors" (i.e. home buyers) could buy low instead of buying high. Which thereby implies that it wouldn't be a good long-term investment at current prices. And by major housing crash, notice what "enormous housing bubble that crashed the world economy" looks like on this chart in 2007 and compare it to what things look like since then, especially since 2020:
Nothing you said is wrong, but you could say that in 2013 too, and in that time apparently prices have nearly doubled and you missed out if you didn't take advantage.
Mortgages are "heads I win, tails you lose" in non-recourse states like California. You're not down more than your down payment, but the upside is huge, and for the past fifty years it has been more financially advantageous to use that leverage to buy the most expensive home they will allow you to.
> Nothing you said is wrong, but you could say that in 2013 too, and in that time apparently prices have nearly doubled and you missed out if you didn't take advantage.
In 2013 you couldn't say that prices have nearly doubled since 2013 under ZIRP, which is the argument that buying now would be buying high.
> Mortgages are "heads I win, tails you lose" in non-recourse states like California. You're not down more than your down payment, but the upside is huge, and for the past fifty years it has been more financially advantageous to use that leverage to buy the most expensive home they will allow you to.
You're not down more than your down payment plus whatever principal and interest you've paid since then.
On top of that, it's still leverage. Suppose you buy a $1M house with a $200k down payment and ~$5000/mo going to principal and interest. In five years you've paid out the $200k down payment, another ~$50k in principal and ~$250k in interest. If the value at that point declines by 25% since you bought, you're not down 25%, you're wiped out, -$500k, because you're left with a $750k house where you still owe $750k having already paid $500k. Let's say it's only -$380k because you'd have had to pay $2000/month to rent a smaller apartment in the alternative.
Whereas if you put the $380k into non-leveraged investments and the market declined by 25%, you'd still have $285k instead of $0. If the overall market does better than housing or it was "safe" investments like CDs then you'd still have the entire $380k plus whatever interest it earned. Worse yet, if housing costs declined then your monthly rent would go down but your mortgage is fixed for 30 years.
You could still make the argument that it's worth it to take the leverage if the upside is expected to be large, i.e. you expect the value to keep going up, but suppose you don't.
> In 2013 you couldn't say that prices have nearly doubled since 2013 under ZIRP, which is the argument that buying now would be buying high.
But in 2013 you could say they've nearly doubled since 1998 under ZIRP, and then everything you say applies.
It's also an option on continuing to live in your same COL but a different city, with a nice large house. Worse case, prices fall enough you can afford a new mortgage even if your investment is wiped out. Worst case of renting is you can never buy because houses appreciate faster than you can save. You said
> then you'd still have the entire $380k plus whatever interest it earned.
And it's not enough to buy a house if prices continue up, and you've lived in a cheap (so probably small and undesirable) apartment for years while your friends are building up their household.
In 1998 it was ~4 having been stable in the 4 to ~4.5 range since the late 1970s. By 2013 it was ~5, from being five years into ZIRP. The peak in the housing crisis bubble was 6.8. Right now it's ~7.
> Worse case, prices fall enough you can afford a new mortgage even if your investment is wiped out.
Where are you getting another down payment having been wiped out? The original down payment was $200k. It only takes a 25% decline to wipe you out and even at the lower price you'd need another $150k to get a new mortgage. And just after a crash would be the time to buy, but that's when you'd have just been zeroed out.
You might be better off to keep the existing house even if you're slightly underwater on it, at least then you don't need to sink another down payment, but then you're stuck continuing to pay the mortgage for a million dollar house when it's only worth $750k.
And there is also a third option. Suppose the prices don't move significantly up or down for a while. Then the leverage neither wipes you out nor gives you leveraged returns, but it means you're paying the interest on that $800k loan while getting no return from it.
> Worst case of renting is you can never buy because houses appreciate faster than you can save.
Which is precisely the problem with buying if that's the thing that actually happens to other people. If prospective buyers can't afford to buy your house for the high price anymore then you can't sell it for the high price anymore, so the next thing that happens is that the price comes down.
> And it's not enough to buy a house if prices continue up, and you've lived in a cheap (so probably small and undesirable) apartment for years while your friends are building up their household.
Which is again predicated on the prices continuing to go up. How high can the home price to income ratio get before something gives?
I was thinking the same thing 10 years ago, but people are still buying houses, the stock market keeps going up. It doesn't make sense. But I lost a lot of money not being more heavily invested and buying a house I could easily afford. I also feel like we're a zombie economy that doesn't know it's dead yet, but all I know is somehow I'm going to be screwed and I won't see it coming.
Aside from all the other objections from this: broadly speaking, if you lose your job and can't get another one, the economy will be bad and house prices will fall.
Not true for absolutely everyone, and as an individual you may feel you can't take this bet even though it's good in aggregate. A great social security system would allow you to take this bet without paying out too much to people who always made bad choices.
If there are no good doctors, dentists, schools, stores, and so in within reasonable distance then life kind of sucks even if you aren't concerned about money/other jobs.
If those things are within a reasonable distance, then so are jobs (well, as about as much as "normal" at least).
I think something important to consider as well is quality of basic services. I've been permanently remote since 2015, and I've moved three times since then. But as a remote worker, I spend most my time in my home and that means it needs high quality water, high quality air, high quality internet, and high quality electrical services. If I cannot get all of these, it's a non-starter. I have absolutely zero faith in getting all of these services of sufficiently high quality for the majority of homes listed on this site, and in many cases I would expect /none/ of these services to be sufficiently high quality. Most of these houses are located in places I would never live, they are essentially negative value locations (in very real terms, not just monetarily).
All that said, I live in one of the lowest cost of living major metros in the US, and I bought a house in an acceptably decent neighborhood w/ high quality water, electrical, and air, and 5 gigabit symmetric fiber service for under $300k. You don't need to spend millions to find an acceptable place to live when you work remotely, but that doesn't mean you want to live in a HUD foreclosure in some of the worst most blighted neighborhoods in the country where you can't rely on even basic services and are going to be immediately a target of violent crime.
I get what you're saying and I see that how my comment could be interpreted.
I wish I had worded it better.
The most vibrant places in the world (again, IME) have a diversity of abilities, backgrounds, ages, and economic status.
There's another type of place - the sort of place I had in mind - that doesn't. That attracts people who are trying to get away from law and any sort of social contract. Some of those places look attractive on the surface. That's the sort of place I'm talking about. They're probably not as common as they seem to be to me.
I thought we were moving toward depicting dinosaurs as having feathers? Or is there just too little evidence around what exactly that would look like to add it to visualizations?
"billed dinosaurs, horned dinosaurs and armoured dinosaurs did not have feathers because we have lots of skin impressions of these animals that clearly show they had scaly coverings" [1]
There is no evidence for example that protoceratops, whose skulls are pictured in the article, had feathers.
Non-avian theropods had feathers, but even then were not necessarily covered with them, it could be a few feathers under the arms. We are talking about species over a 200 million year time period.
To be fair, this is in Oklahoma so we're lucky they're depicting dinosaurs as real at all.
Just kidding. This museum is actually awesome. The staff was incredibly knowledgeable and friendly when I visited years ago (I went to college nearby).
If I remember correctly, one of the curators mentioned adding feathers to some of their more permanent exhibits when I was there. Maybe they are still working on expanding that and/or getting everyone on board? I'd love to hear their actual reasoning! I gotta go back and pester them about feathers.
In a working economy, an increase in demand for electricity would be met with an increase in investment and capacity, and (at least in the long-term) would benefit all electricity buyers. I'm sure there are market failures going on here in many places but it's not necessarily the case that you and the companies be on opposing sides. There are positive-sum solutions to a lot of these problems, if people are willing to consider them.
The problem is that we don’t correctly price pollution: it’d be one thing if this boom meant acres of solar panels and wind turbines getting greenlit but in practice it means keeping some dirty plants online and building out new pollution capacity, sometimes completely illegally like what happened in Memphis.
All of this would go away overnight if we taxed carbon.
New is heavily solar, yes, but there’s still too much natural gas and the administration is deeply committed to returning the investment fossil fuel companies made in the president’s campaign so I wouldn’t bet on that continuing.
What’s more of a concern is coal being kept online just for data centers. Even if the national average drops, that’s a regional health risk where it happens.
> Just south of the Tennessee-Mississippi state line sits dozens of unpermitted gas turbines that power xAI’s Colossus 2 data center while releasing smog-forming pollution, soot, and hazardous chemicals like formaldehyde. The tech company set up the de facto power plant with no permits, no public input, and no notice to nearby communities that will have to deal with the consequences.
being the key phrase. Until we get to that long term, the less price sensitve buyer can buy up all available goods.
for example, all of the gas turbines needed to generate electricity.
so it is impossible to invest in capacity for non-datacenter uses, because the raw ingredients have already been bought up by the data centers.
effectively, at current rate of investment, > 90% of investment into new power generation goes to data centers. That doesn't leave much for any kind of other economic growth, since all of our economic growth depends on electricity.
> In a working economy, an increase in demand for electricity would be met with an increase in investment and capacity, and (at least in the long-term) would benefit all electricity buyers.
The same should apply to memory and GPU manufacturers and yet I have seen no commitments from them to increase supply, so the end result is that consumer electronics are becoming ever more expensive compared to even just a year ago. That doesn't feel like a working economy to me.
This is an unusual comment to read because many manufacturers are public and therefore have released their expansion plans to shareholders (and therefore the public). Most recently, Micron is planning to build much more because their clients have made purchase agreements to 2030: https://www.aol.com/articles/micron-just-locked-100-billion-...
> The hyperscalers building AI infrastructure are willing to pre-commit to HBM and DDR5 capacity through the decade because they cannot afford a repeat of the 2024 shortage.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the article makes it seem like all that new capacity will be reserved for AI infra, not consumer electronics or personal computing, which is what my comment was specifically about. Happy to be proven wrong if Micron has said anything about reviving the Crucial brand or Sony committing to lowering console pricing because they (or their memory supplier) secured capacity.
Don't all states have public utility commissions that regulate electricity provisioning? I don't know if the market has much to do with anything since it's all government regulation.
reply