Scaling laws in terms of loss are well established.
How loss translates into higher-level capabilities is anyone's guess.
1,645 karma · joined June 27, 2012
How loss translates into higher-level capabilities is anyone's guess.
Not all property is owned by developers. I would go even further and say that most properties are owned by non-developers.
Some people use land as store of value. We as a society would be better off if they used, e.g. gold instead.
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Type | Land Value | Cover Value | Total Value |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Parking Lot | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| Dump | 100 | -20 | 80 |
| Skyscrapper | 100 | 100 | 200 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Type | Land Value | Cover Value | Total Value |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
| Parking Lot | 150 | 0 | 150 |
| Dump | 150 | -20 | 130 |
| Skyscrapper | 150 | 100 | 250 |
+-------------+------------+-------------+-------------+
London for example have buildings which are prohibited of having parking (or getting street permit). Providing an option not pay for parking space when buying an apartment is not that.
How is *not requiring* parking to be provided inducing scarcity artificially?
I agree with rest of the comment, but I feel that connection between walkability and population density is misunderstood. It's not "we need XXX people/sq. mile in US to have walkability", it's "allowing walkability and building corresponding infrastructure leads to increase in local density in places where people want to live".
The most up-to date information on the tube I could found was this report[0], that only covered a number of stations. Even then, the information provided is not great, e.g. for Highbury & Islington:
> The results for particulate matter were between <0.02 and 2.16 mg/m3 for PM2.5.
Results cover the range from 4x of WHO recommended limit (5 μg/m3, i.e. 0.005 mg/m3) to 432x.
[0] https://content.tfl.gov.uk/dust-monitoring-lu-stations.pdf
Same with loudness which on some (old) lines is way past safe.
Sorry for being pedantic, but charging "bad customers" $XXX and charging everyone $XXX more, whilst giving everyone but "bad customer" $XXX back, are equivalent.
The third possibility is of course that top 1% of the college students outside of US are better than 10th percentile of college students inside.
The best one can do is accept that and make your processing idempotent.
[0] The most interesting case I've witnessed was power going down because a hot air balloon crashed into power line.
Manifold prediction market (playmoney, low user numvers, usual caveats apply) puts risk of "malicious LLM prompt injection attack by the end of 2023?" at around 66%.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34976886 [1] https://manifold.markets/tb/will-we-see-a-malicious-llm-prom...
They hire private security for they gated community, don't have any Teslas stolen, bemoan on how poor kids that steal cars are a result of dysfunctional society and pat each other on backs for being so progressive. All while completely ignoring the fact that it's mostly other poor people, who are victims of those crimes. See [0]
[0] https://robkhenderson.substack.com/p/status-symbols-and-the-...
- Using memcpy[0] for arbitrary types is just wrong, see [1]
[0] https://github.com/DNedic/lockfree/blob/main/lockfree/inc/bi...
[1] https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p11...
Between 2021 and 2022 Germany's share of electricity from Nuclear declined from 12.6 to 6.3%, coal increased from 30.2 to 33.3% [0]
In a hypothetical scenario where Germany didn't reduce nuclear generating capacity what do you think is the likeliest amount of electricity generated from coal?
a. higher than 33.3%
b. lower than 33.3%
If you think that answer is (b) than decision to shut down nuclear did indeed increase coal usage as compared to hypothetical 2022 with nuclear not closed
If you instead think that answer is (a) I would be interested in hearing the reasoning.
[0] https://www.destatis.de/EN/Press/2023/03/PE23_090_43312.html
Starting point: nuclear + coal
Option 1: nuclear + renewables
Option 2 (selected): coal + renewables
While this is true, that yes, Germany didn't replace nuclear with coal directly, the delta between option 1 and 2 (which was the choice made) is (-nuclear, +coal).
I don't think it's possible except when both key and value are fixed size (which is not the case in the example shown).
Comparing derivative doesn't make much sense if the starting point is wildly different.
When do you think Germany's emissions per capita will be lower than France?
Suppose GPT-X just dropped and it could both generate text AND play chess better than Magnus Carlssen.
How would that change you position on it being unable to pass the human-level intelligence barrier?
Some people, including YC CEO, argue that taxpayers should drop the "up to FDIC limit" part.
I've took another look at out conversation and you didn't do that. I was arguing against position you didn't hold. Sorry for that.
Converting from (EV on bank accounts) to return for shareholders is non-trivial, but as long as shareholders get > 100% RoI in successful case their EV is positive.
> Bank employees could get higher bonuses, but also run higher risk of 0% bonus and losing their job.
Losing job aside, equal chances of 100% and 0% bonus is better than guaranteed 30% bonus. Depending on premium you put on having the same job, it may be better even with risk of losing job.
This scenario will not work for investments, as people understand that if startup X fails - you loose money. In "government bails out depositors completely" scenario: you invest money in bank, bank loans it to startup X, startup X fails - you get your money back (from government and ultimately taxpayers).
And that's problematic for banking.
Thought experiment: for bank functionaries a strategy that has an equal chances of +10% and -40% is better than guaranteed +4% (for them EV is +5%). As a result, they are able to attract more depositors by providing higher rates that bank that went with option (2). Depositors will (rationally) chase highest rates knowing that worst case scenario - government bails them out completely.
Everyone behaves according to incentives, with the result being that money is used on ventures with -15% expected value instead of +4%.
Right, if one can get majority of the landlords to collude and government doesn't crack on collusion - this software would create such market.
Until we're in such dire situation: software is expediting price discovery, discovered prices are high because we don't build enough, we don't build enough because there's ridiculous amount of red tape, and doing anything that doesn't lead to more housing being built is spending time and effort on wrong problem.
No, this is not how this works. Rent is set by demand and (very insufficient) supply.
If landlord could increase rent by $X - they would have increased it already (software in TFA speeds up the process, but doesn't set market clearing price). A simple thought experiment would be something akin "98% tax on rental income". "Pass it to renter" would imply 50x increase in rent to preserve existing income.
Bottom line: make it easier to build more housing. it doesn't have to be subsidized/affordable/below market rate[0]. Any addition of units has downward effect on rent across all range of prices.
[0] > [In Helsinki] The supply of new market rate units triggers moving chains that quickly reach middle- and low-income neighborhoods and individuals. Thus, new market-rate construction loosens the housing market in middle- and low-income areas even in the short run.
From "City-wide effects of new housing supply: Evidence from moving chains" https://ideas.repec.org/p/fer/wpaper/146.html
Prices raise because people are willing to pay that much for dwelling. People are willing to pay that much, because supply doesn't keep with demand.
## Why I don't consider this a case of price-fixing
Price-fixing that is not done via consolidation is ultimately unstable from game theory point of view.
There's very strong incentive to defect from "optimal vacancy rate" and eat outsized profit compared to the rest of competition. Making building easier makes consolidation harder, as outsiders are now potential defectors as well. AFAIK we're not in monopoly situation (yet?) for rental properties.
Why would they lose their job? White Castle would declare bankruptcy, someone else will buy physical properties and equipment, and I would assume open a new restaurant(s) there.