Not necessarily. If you add density to an existing lot, your land increases in value, and since it’s likely the majority of the value of your property, your property probably goes up in value. Then, the increased supply decreases the cost of shelter.
How does it not reduce demand for land? Eg right now if I wanted to live in one of these places, I virtually have to compete to buy a plot of land that I alone own.
With high density housing, me and another few hundred people who would have been demand for land can instead buy condos or rent apartments and share that plot of land. Our demand was satisfied for fractions of a percent of the supply it would have taken with low density housing.
Ie high density housing efficiently uses land, thereby reducing demand for it.
Some areas will be gentrified and be worth more. If I were going to guess, the downtown core will spike in value and the suburbs will have to drop in value to compete with the affordability of downtown living.
I suspect a lot of people would live downtown instead of the suburbs if they could get a 2/3BR that wasn’t 4x the cost of living in the suburbs.
That's a single plot, increasing density by maybe a factor of 6, at absolute best. If enough units come onto the market to relieve the so-called shortage, prices necessarily drop.
In any case, the problem might very well be, directly, that prices are too high, because it has invited speculation and warehousing. Inventory as the crux might be wrong.
They're claiming we can see both, because the number of people sheltered per unit of land will have increased.
While I see this as plausible in some cases, I also think it's sweeping a big error constant into "housing affordability" if we're saying that the kind of housing "affordable" to one generation is of a different kind than was realistic for the preceding generation. If your parents could afford a single family home with a yard and you can afford an apartment in a building put up where someone's single family home used to be ... surely we can agree that actual housing affordability meaningfully decreased?
Thanks, this is a great explanation. It seems like these "nm" indicators are much like measuring a car's power in "horsepower". It is certainly measuring something real but its connection to actual horses has long since atrophied.
I don't think so. There has to be a plausible survivor for survivorship bias. Living forever is advantageous to being a member of a survival cohort, and yet survivorship bias hasn't discovered any immortal people. Is there a plausible reason for things to exist that would explain why existence survived as an outcome?
And Gab's rivals use their megaphones to say less-than-flattering things about white people, men, etc. You're not going to escape bias or vitriol by sticking to one echo chamber. Not in this cultural climate, at least.
7. Need to understand that drunk person staggering along the roadside has been repeatedly slipping off the sidewalk and there's a non-zero chance they trip and fall right in front of you.
8. Need to understand that sometimes the stripes you see aren't the real stripes, you're driving near sunset and are seeing the sun reflected off of old stripes that were painted over with glossy black (wtf WSDOT).
7.5. Need to understand that the drink person staggering _inside_ the robotaxi has just thrown up in the backseat. After they are dropped off, the robotaxi cannot pick up any new customers.
This is a dance move known as the "tenderloin lurch". Well, not really, the Tenderloin Lurch is when a person staggers up to a crosswalk, waits until they have a NO WALK sign and proceeds to cross, while ignoring all the drivers who about to run them over.
I've been in situations like this. In SF. I grew up here.
What you describe is the classic west coast non-confrontationalism. You're probably annoying enough that it's simply not worth it to counter anything you say because you just dive into a petty and self-aggrandizing argumentative mode.
Brash and confused conservatives think everyone agrees with them, but in reality people don't want to get caught up in absolute bullshit by joining any kind of interaction with them. This is a common pattern by now. You would do well to recognize it.
$5000 a month? That's pretty embarrassing, isn't it? That indicates they aren't doing satellite-to-satellite and are using some kind of specialized hardware to simply send the signal to coastal satellites from farther away.
Inmarsat is the only viable alternative for smaller boats that offers unlimited data plans, has higher latency due to being geostationary, much lower bandwidth, and charges about $8000 for a gigabyte…
I‘m not sure what Ku or Ka band GEO providers charge, but I doubt you can find anything competitive there either, and these require very large antennas.
Considering the coverage map is mostly coastal waters, private LTE and 5g are the 'budget' competition (for now). In some areas like the Gulf of Mexico, a not insignificant portion of the water is serviced by LTE that you can roam onto using a conventional TMobile, Sprint or AT&T SIM, often without an additional cost.
Agreed, currently it does not seem to be competitive (Inmarsat also offers significant discounts on their coastal plans for the same reason). But with their projected coverage in Q4 2022 and Q1 2023, it's a very different story.
Compared to what their architecture should enable. Sure, it's more satellites consumed per request but there aren't _that_ many satellites between some random point in the Pacific and the nearest base station. Certainly seems like it's not scaling that well if the price jumps from ~$120 to $5000.
It seems more of a question of supply and demand than a limitation of their technology. If the competition currently charges more than $5000, why should they charge (much) less?
It is! But their architecture should enable them to hit a much lower price point. Maybe it's just charging what the market will bear? If this is what they need to charge to be profitable, though, that indicates the satellite-to-satellite approach doesn't scale well, or they've been losing money.
If you selling a service that doesn't yet exist (or where you are an order of magnitude cheaper than the competition), usually you want to charge as much as you can while still selling all your inventory.
Or maybe it's the Tesla Roadster of this particular long-term plan. Some scoff, others wait for the price on the upcoming tier that's not quite 350 Mbps...
Co-pilot is great when you have a repetitive programming task to perform. e.g. if you are nesting module imports through several layers of python init. Co-pilot is great at tab-completing `from myproject.some_module.nested_module.actual_module import Foo as Foo` and similar tasks.
> My personal experience is that consciousness, like free will, is a useful illusion.
This is easily contradicted. Let's say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of computation but causality only flows one way: you "choose" to do something because your brain chose to do it and your consciousness tricked itself into thinking it was doing the choosing.
If that were the case, then the brain wouldn't be aware of consciousness. The illusion falls apart due to the fact that we are discussing consciousness right now. Consciousness must have at least some ability to communicate back to the brain.
And since evolution hates inefficiency, that means it must have a purpose.
> And since evolution hates inefficiency, that means it must have a purpose.
Evolution doesn't hate or love anything, and everything evolved does not have a purpose. Evolution is a theoretical framework developed by humans to describe some things that happen in the world they observe, not a guiding force or a god.
It's honestly kind of amazing that you appear to have ascribed consciousness to evolution in an argument for the human uniqueness of consciousness.
This seems like an overly narrow reading of gp. One does not have to anthropomorphize evolution to speculate that consciousness would likely have fit this pattern of “some things that happen”
If you’re taking “hates” literally… it’s probably a misreading
I think the idea that evolution has a purpose and a direction is more than common enough that when someone says something like that things that evolve never lack a purpose, they've gone wrong in their understanding of evolution, even if only in subtle ways they may not be aware of themselves.
Anyways, I think the juxtaposition is funny no matter how seriously they meant it. We all want to believe that consciousness is something that can be easily defined and yet our use of aspects of it is extremely fuzzy.
> you "choose" to do something because your brain chose to do it and your consciousness tricked itself into thinking it was doing the choosing.
This happens most of the time actually. The most interesting experiment really highlighting specifically that it happens is in split brain patients. But in common day experiences, I believe that all habits fall under this and basically anything that our default mode network is directing for us.
When I was in a meditation retreat what I noticed is that I have all kinds of feelings and thoughts arising that were not arising because I chose them to arise, instead they were arising on their own. When you really observe yourself you see that happening. In that sense, the beginning of a thought and feeling has a very distinct quality that dreams have as well which is they are "passed down from up on high" (metaphorically speaking). What I get to decide is whether I choose to follow that feeling/train of thought, but the more I looked into it, the more I realized that my choice is very limited in that as well. As my whether I'd follow a feeling/thought or not was actually based on other feelings and thoughts. In any case, the more I observed myself, the more I came to the conclusion that I have no free will, there is no "me" that does the choosing. It's all feelings/thoughts that arise that I have nothing to do with. I only have freedom of choice.
And then I got to normal life, and lived my life as normal. It did help me to have more sympathy for other people.
So now I wonder how you experience yourself if you'd go to a 10 day silent/meditation retreat ;-)
You wrongly assume the output of such "computation" cannot itself be an input to the computation. Which, if you know anything about the brain, we know certainly happens by virtue of watching synapses fire.
See also simplified models like recurrent neural networks for example.
