lbarrow

Interesting that most of the decline happened in the 2000s. The graph shows a large decline from ~2000 to ~2008 which continues after the GFC before going up a bit in the 2010s. The drop off since COVID is comparatively small.

I don't think that's what the attacker did here. Vercel is a PaaS product where other developers run apps. The enumerated environment variables were the env vars of Vercel's customers, which Vercel likely stores in a long-term data store. Rather than running `env` on a Linux box somewhere, the attacker may have just accessed that data store.

Yea, I suppose that is fair regarding cook timings.

Spitting your food out because the AI generated the recipe is so clearly irrational that I chuckled a bit on reading that

For people who support this kind of ban, I'd ask if you would support a similar ban on new factories for, say, car parts.

Like data centers, factories use a lot of power -- which drives up electricity bills -- and their construction can have local environmental impacts. Data centers have a reputation for not providing too many local jobs, but modern factories are often highly automated and also don't provide too many local jobs.

If, given all that, you'd support factory construction but not data center construction, I'd be curious as to why.

Yea, this sounds like a completely reasonable process to me. They should obviously update their system to accept the electronic submission of evidence, but the process itself is fine.

1) Is already how things work. Every single municipality I've ever seen in the US offers an owner-occupancy tax abatement.

2) Would just inflate home prices.

Why do you think they aren't on the market right now? These companies buy them so that they can rent them. They are on the rental market!

Why would this help affordability? If you restrict who can operate rentals, that will inevitably shrink the supply of rentals, which will raise rents.

Carefeed | Senior Software Engineer and Senior Data Engineer | Chicago, IL

Carefeed makes software that makes it easier to operate senior centers. Our mission is to help make residents, family members and staff happier. Thousands of communities across the US and Canada already use our tools, and we're growing quickly.

We're looking for a Software Engineer and a first Data Engineer to join our Chicago office. Our engineering team is small -- less than 20 people -- so there's a huge opportunity to have an impact. These roles are in person 3-4 days a week in our office at Wacker and Wells in downtown Chicago.

Senior SWE: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/carefeed/jobs/4972304008 Senior Data Engineer: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/carefeed/jobs/4961308008

My point is that with Google I don't have to learn any of this, it just works logically out of the box. Compare that to Microsoft, where I have to understand the history of their on-prem vs cloud products in order to know the right way to make a distribution list. Forcing this complexity onto users when it's irrelevant to the task they're trying to accomplish is bad design.

I don't think this would prevent the session cookie from being sent to tag manager. The tag manager document describes setting up a specific path on the website's normal domain, not using a subdomain.

Without commenting on the larger issue the article brings up, this specific point doesn't survive scrutiny to me:

  Some of the company’s tactics post-merger were garden-variety ruthless, like eliminating 87 series from its streaming platform Max, so that they won’t have to pay union-mandated residuals to the talent that created already-existing programs or pony up funds to produce more seasons of existing ones (such as “Our Flag Means Death,” one of the company’s most popular and critically acclaimed comedies—canceled after just two seasons).

In the streaming era, it's very easy for the revenue created by hosting an older piece of content to be dwarfed by residuals. Streaming services get customers largely by releasing popular new titles; it's entirely predictable that pushing for higher residuals would drive services to sunset series faster, and it's entirely reasonable for services to stop hosting titles that lose them money.

I think you might be missing the context. The scenario we're discussing is a parking lot surrounded by skyscrapers in the middle of a major city. Under a property tax regime, the owner pays little taxes because the structures on the lot are not valuable. Under an LVT, the owner pays the same (high) taxes as the skyscrapers next to it, which would be obvious uneconomical.

So under property taxes, the parking lot owner can afford to wait and have the lot sit empty; under an LVT, they have an incentive to develop.

And right now they can afford to wait forever! But with an LVT they have a big incentive to either develop it immediately or sell to someone else who will.

It's no coincidence that people who support LVTs are typically YIMBYs -- we want to reform urban planning and land use to make it easier to build things.

When you tax something, you get less of it. By reducing the supply of a good, taxes deter otherwise mutually beneficial transactions from happening; the loss of mutual benefit from a tax (or other policy) is called "deadweight loss".

Land value taxes have a special property in that land owners cannot respond to the tax by producing less land; the supply of land is fixed. This means LVTs do not generate deadweight loss, which makes them very efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax#Efficiency

The responses here are all assuming your grandmothers taxes would go up. But bear in mind LVTs are intend to replace the existing property tax regime (at least in the US). If your grandmother lives in a quiet suburb or rural area, it's likely that her taxes would decrease under an LVT if the LVT was trying to extract roughly the same amount of overall money as a property taxes regime.

If she lives in the middle of a city, then yes her taxes may increase.

Yes, that's exactly the idea. In Chicago, where I live, there are surface parking lots in the middle of the downtown surrounded by skyscrapers. In a logical system, the owner of those parking lots would have to pay just as much in land taxes as the skyscraper owners next to them -- and since they couldn't possibly afford to do so, they'd be forced to sell to someone who would develop the land and put it to more productive use. Under the current system, though, the parking lot owner pays peanuts while the skyscraper owner is effectively penalized for putting the land to use.

The gentrification situation is similar: if someone is living in a single-family home in an area that is filling up with apartments, they're using the land much less efficiently than a replacement structure would. As land values slowly increase, the owner would be prompted to eventually sell to someone who would put it to higher value use. You could have some speed bumps in the policy to make sure this doesn't happen too fast, but if you stop it entirely you're just giving up on productive land use.

It's worth noting that property taxes have the same dynamic, since they also incorporate land value in them. The difference though is that _property taxes discourage development_, which contributes to higher rents. Land value taxes do not have this problem; a world where we suddenly swap to LVTs is a world with many more buildings and much lower average rents.

Yes, that's exactly the idea. We have a problem in the US where many metro areas do not have enough housing, in part because building big things is penalized by the tax code. By changing the tax code to not penalize construction, we hope to get more construction.

I appreciate this guy taking the time to test this stuff out, but... 2.5 minutes per application seems really reasonable and short? Even the Post Office application that took 10 minutes seems fine. I get that you might have to apply to a lot of different jobs, but at that rate in 2-3 hours of focused work, you could apply to nearly a hundred different jobs.

The fact that it's that easy to apply belies the tone the article takes, which generally bemoans how hard job applications are. But they didn't demonstrate that it's hard at all! Moreover, the author even says in the beginning that they didn't use any of the products that help you, like LinkedIn Easy Apply.

Anyway seems interesting but this mostly just confirmed my perception that applying to jobs is pretty easy. Interviews, on the other hand...

I think it's a fair point that bots should strive to be useful and not just mock people's mistakes, but in the 8 years since this was written the whole "punch up, not down" idea in comedy has gotten a lot of criticism and is kind of passe at this point, at least in my experience.

Human beings simply do not exist on a single monolith spectrum of power; who is "up" or "down" often depends quite a lot on context. If an underemployed white male comedian makes a joke about Kamala Harris, is that punching up or down? _Parasite_ is a movie that mocks a rich family even as it portrays their poorer help as scheming and untrustworthy - is that up, or down? To steal an example from this excellent Freddie de Boer post on the topic, if an adjunct professor runs afoul of a student, are they really the ones in the position of power?

Anyway Freddie sums the whole thing up much better than I could: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/punching-up-and-punchin...

Yea, I just stopped reading when that started up. I don't understand why people intentionally make their websites annoying to read.

No, that kinda is right - under special relativity, as your apparent velocity from a fixed reference frame increases, it takes more and more energy to accelerate closer to light speed, so _moving_ faster than light is disallowed.

Another way of putting this is: we know because of special relativity that you can't just strap a lot of rocket boosters on a spaceship and expect to go faster than light. That won't work; if you want to _travel_ faster than light, you have to do it another way.

I would simply avoid having a housing crisis by allowing people to build more housing. Seems pretty win-win to me.

It's bizarre. I live in Chicago and don't have to deal with anything like this. The West coast has a really strange set of blinkers on about these problems.

What's the difference between a human artist walking around in the world, seeing images and videos (many of which are under copyright) and then using those images as inspiration, versus an AI being fed millions of images and videos as part of a large training set?

I am not a lawyer but I don't really see the "it's not fair use" argument.

Does CPSC not have the authority to fine Amazon or otherwise get them to stop selling these things? That seems like it would be much more effective than a post on a website.

These rankings consistently tell people that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc are the best schools in the country. Why would they boycott rankings that praise them?

This is pretty straightforward to explain without any nefarious things going on:

  * You don't need to take out a loan to exercise your options until you vest some options, which would typically take a least a year
  * Bolt grew really quickly and so had a high % of employees with low tenure
  * The layoffs disproportionally affected newer employees, which is extremely common and reasonable

If the people laid off were mostly people hired within the last year who had no reason to take out the loan yet, then you'd get a result like what we saw.

(All that said -- these loans are an absolutely terrible idea and I think offering them is irresponsible.)

This is exactly right. You have to disclose risks to your business and if a really big part of your growth is coming from a new, volatile customer base, that's a big risk and you should disclose it. It has nothing to do with a specific requirement for GPUs or something; publicly traded companies _in general_ have a responsibility to understand where their revenue comes from and disclose that understanding to the public.

This is very run-of-the-mill stuff for the SEC. I think the only reason it's getting play on HN is that, if you aren't familiar with this sort of thing, it looks like the SEC is picking on Nvidia for doing business with crypto miners. But that isn't what the complaint is actually about.