Don't forget the most important scarce resource they require: space.
We waste so much space for parking and other car friendly infrastructure there often is not enough left for a a bike line or even a sidewalk let alone some actually pleasant peaceful passage people could use.
My friend does some trades in watch market as he gets access to limited editions from time to time (if you know right people in dealerships you can sometimes buy a watch out of line if the original "subscribed" buyer doesn't show up).
There are quite a few people who want to buy an expensive watch or two to show off on their social media. People just really like shiny status symbols.
The argument "cutters" are making is that there is enough money but also too much waste. Case in point are consulting firms discussed here: they charge you 3x rate of their employees. You could have been paying 2x to get better employees and savings at the same time.
I am for that as well. Build dormitories as housing of last resort. Limit tenants rights to make eviction of non-payers easier. As it is landlords take all the risk and it makes life of honest tenants much expensive and more difficult. It should be easy to rent and it should be easy to evict non-paying tenants. If the society thinks we should house everyone then that cost should be on tax payers in general not the unlucky landlord.
Limiting tenants' rights is good for vast majority (95%+ at least) of tenants.
The way it is there are more and more obstacles (insurance, requiring proof of contract/work, very high deposits etc.) to just rent an apartment or a house.
If the government thinks everyone deserves a roof then the government should build cheap, simple housing of last resort instead of forcing the property owners to take the risk.
Tenants rights are not only about how long you get to stay without paying rent. Not being able to compel your landlord to remove pests, mold or fix noisy steam radiators is not something that would benefit the vast majority of tenants.
Yeah, sure those are needed but they are not the reason you have to jump through hooves and pay ridiculous deposits just to rent an apartment. I know quite a few landlords. None of them would complain about stricter rules and obligations when it comes to maintenance. What they think about every day is non paying or otherwise problematic tenants. This affects the process they use to decide who to rent to and the demographic they are willing to rent to as well.
The effect is that honest people find it difficult to rent an apartment because abusers run rampant and the system protects them. In some European countries you need to prove you have stable job and get recommendation from the previous landlord to even be in the consideration and then you basically have to go for an interview. It's a ridiculous and humiliating process which wouldn't exist if landlords could throw out abusers without much hassle.
Isn't AI just a tool here like any other? Sounds very inconsistent to me. It would be better to narrow copyright protection but grant it more liberally imo.
Non tech people deciding on tech cases. In the next episode we will get AI paintbrush smart enough to help you but dumb enough the court still let's you copyright your work. Top legal minds deciding if it's sufficiently dumb to meet arbitrary standard they came up with when deciding the previous case.
In this case, no, because the human involved explicit sought a copyright registration listing the AI as the author, and claims that the work was entirely the product of the AI.
(In point of fact, yes, the AI is a tool used by a human, and to the extent the work may be copyrightable, copyright should have been sought listing the human author; but that's not what happened, and the case deals with the legality of what was actually sought, not what arguably should instead have been sought.)
> Non tech people deciding on tech cases.
Almost as bad as non law people commenting on law cases.
My comment was in relation to the one about the monkey making a photo. You are right though, I haven't read the case and just relied on comments to assume the court rejected the copyright claim "because it was created by AI" which I now see is not what happened, thank you.
Short term rentals fulfil important function. There is real demand for it. The problem is that it's expensive or just impossible to build anything and that it's very cheap to own.
The solution is known: significant land value tax and looser regulations to actually use the land. This will not happen though because of lobbying of property and land owners who enjoy their rent seeking. They will always manage to find another scape goat. One day it's flippers, next day it's Airbnb. Anything but land owners being forced to pay taxes to fund the area they own land on.
High earners in America has it much better when it comes to healthcare than most Europeans. Public system means you (as a high earner) are paying a lot (because in most EU countries it's based on % of your income) and you still wait in the same line, often for years even when it comes to procedures you can't function without.
I paid more for my public health insurance than some of the most premium plans in US and I still needed to pay out of pocket when my cervical spine gave up and I was in pain for months. I would need to wait 2-3 years to get it done by public healthcare even though I contributed to it 20x what an average earner has.
There is no chance EU attracts any kind of talent with policies like those. Maybe Switzerland (reasonable taxes and health insurance independent of your income) or countries like Cyprus. Old EU is all about sucking out all you produce and giving it to others. Great deal if you are a pensioner or government worker, not so much when you are someone who can generate a lot of income yourself.
That's an argument Trump is betting on. I find it very disappointing that his opponents shout that it's clearly unconstitutional without addressing the point.
Reasonable way to approach it would be to try to understand what the authors meant back then. Maybe they meant something completely different but why not address the obvious point the other side is making?
I also think granting citizenship to children of people who are in a country illegally is silly and I find it very disappointing that Trump's opponents are so ideologically driven and frankly blind to popular sentiment that they can't even admit it. They make it sound like an attack on human rights or some racist policy while the whole thing is ridiculous. It's rewarding people for breaking the law - the worse kind of policy you can come up with. There is a reason very few countries have this kind of rule.
>> I'm talking about cash here. Cash is literally an article of faith and nothing else. It's not backed by any asset.
It's backed by contracts to pay it back. There are powerful institutions employing people with guns and other means to make you pay back.
"Faith" undersells the situation. We developed the whole system to force people to pay their loans back.
reply