Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | xenadu02's comments login

This is a huge part of it.

Congress might increase the budget by 3% but when they force something like SLS on NASA that eats 6% of the budget in real terms it was a 3% cut.

And this assumes the employees don't deserve any raises or bonuses.

When some people were proposing Swift remove the ability to use Emoji in variable names this was my reply:

> It’s hella presumptuous to decide that I’m not allowed to express whimsy, frustration, humor, or any other emotions in my code. Or to tell an 8 year old using Playgrounds on the iPad that he/she can’t name a variable :pig: purely because they find it funny. We don’t have to squash the joy out of everything.

As soon as I realized I could have emoji in bash function names I did a thing[0] with it. It breaks shellcheck, annoys people who I try to convince to use it, but it makes me very happy.

[0] https://code.ofvlad.xyz/v/lightning-runner

Similar here. My $4k in TSLA's IPO was just a gamble that EVs would not die (per conventional wisdom) but were here to stay.

A few years ago I sold $100k of TSLA and retained the other $100k which is worth more now.

It was just a gamble. I'm not silly enough to think I can pick winners like that all the time.

Safari is one of the primary reasons Internet Explorer died.

The iPhone became a huge hit and it ran Safari. Huge swaths of the internet had "requires Internet Explorer" plastered on every page. The iPhone immediately made that untenable, at least in mindshare even if marketshare was not quite there yet.

As someone who used Firefox at the time web page compatibility improved tremendously thanks to the iPhone and Safari.

I'll also remind people that Google decided they didn't want to play in the same sandbox as everyone else and forked WebKit to make Blink, then promptly went on a tear ripping out what they didn't like and adding their own proprietary extensions as fast as their engineers could think them up.

Google is also the one spamming everyone who goes to Google.com with prompts to switch to Chrome.

Shakespeare only really works for me in original pronunciation. The rhyme scheme makes sense, the alliteration comes back... even some nonsensical lyrics become obvious jokes.

Most of the time we are on autopilot and our brain retconns the reason for an action, decision, or emotion after the fact.

But it seems clear that at times we consciously steer our autopilot in a new direction by choice. Some number of repetitions and that becomes the new autopilot behavior.

Actual conscious thought and control is too metabolically expensive and slow to use much of the time but it has its uses.

> Actual conscious thought and control is too metabolically expensive and slow to use much of the time but it has its uses.

I was about to write some long winded reply to why this doesn't make sense . Is this such a crazy thought? Do people really feel like they are in control of themselves? After spending a lot of time thinking about this, I cannot understand how I make decisions.

I literally cannot tell you what I am going to do next. I can say that I am going to end this reply. But I have no idea when or why I am going to stop here.

Same, and this is why I think I'm also not much more than an LLM or a next token predictor. All of my actions could be continuous domino pieces. It all seems just to be falling naturally. I'm not trying to be humble or anything. It just seems obvious how the life is. All I do could be autopiloted, I do have an unexplained special sense of consciousness, but I'm not actually seeing a strong need for it. I happen to be or feel like I am and that I'm somehow special, but it seems like I could also operate at the same or even better efficiency without that.

It's absurd to believe that consciousness is in any way responsible for decision making. There's no plausible scientific model that would allow for that to take place without breaking causality. Instead, we have strong evidence that points to consciousness being an epiphenomenon of brain activity, completely detached from action.

What a dangerous thought, so mathematical learning is predetermined what biological factors? Is not the conservation of the body’s metabolism in the utility of communication served more physically? The ability to fast and ascetic rituals are self-evident demonstration of human motor neural control away from baseline biological processes. Unless you can please explain a hypothesis for the development of motor control habits, e.g. for healthy socializing? I suppose better group balance by controlling the body’s autonomic nerves is an adaptive response, but who is the one to get the chain of being started? To the conscious activity the answer is: through random genetic assortment?

What about this conclusion then:

It's absurd to believe quantum physics can in any way be the right theory of the world at a small scale.


> There's no plausible scientific model that would allow for that to take place without breaking causality.

Indefinite causal structures show up quantum theory [1].

All hinges on what is meant by the opaque "breaking causality".

[1] e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2930

At the very least, consciousness causes enough impact on reality to result in the concept of “consciousness” to make it into dictionaries. If it was truly an epiphenomenon, such real-world impacts would be acausal.

From what I read it's actually the opposite. Studies seem to show that while our attention makes us feel in charge and at the helm, the decisions and the thoughts that arise happen way before our ability to influence them consciously. It appears that our consciousness is mostly a rationalization layer after the fact.

That's why there is a problem explaining consciousness in the first place. The more we dig the more elusive it is

As far as I know, those studies all look at minor "decisions", such as pressing the left or the right button after a sound is heard. They find that they can predict which button will be pressed earlier than the conscious decision to pick one was experienced.

However, there is no actual "decision" to be made there. It's a random choice, and it's not that random choices are not conscious decisions.

It's much harder to devise an experiment that looks at actual, meaningful, decisions. And I'm not talking about something extreme like "do I love this person" or whatever, just a real decision, like the ones you might make in an RPG ("do I help or kill this NPC").

I'm puzzled by the downvotes. Am I saying something obscene or against the rules of polite discourse? I mean, I could be wrong sure but I don't think downvotes are for disagreeing with what somebody says but for punishing behavior that lowers the standards of the forum. Am I really doing that with this comment? Do I need to cite all the articles and books I read to form this opinion or else I cannot state an opinion?

As with many problems this can be handled by a layer of indirection.

Have your subclass push all its data into a storage object that itself is a simple ObjC type held in a standard ARC-managed property/ivar. Then the NSCopyObject memcpy copies the pointer to your storage and the ARC fixup ensures the retain count of the storage object is correct.

This is the simplest way to resolve the problem for something like NSCell without anyone making future code changes needing to think about it too hard or accidentally introducing a regression.

I take that as part of the point they were making: white supremecists, for example, claim white people are superior. Their actions are logical in some sense if you accept their premises that a) race is a useful classification akin to species and b) there is some inherent difference between races.

To be clear personally I think the science has definitively debunked not only supremacy of any race but even race as a concept which is really all about skin tone and facial features... many people's DNA doesn't even match their supposed "race" because the categorization of race is akin to color of coat in dogs: a very superficial trait useful as a visual descriptor but not useful for segmenting individuals into groups.

Not to mention the whole story of homosapiens is freeing us from biological evolution. The idea that someone's biology inherently limits their worth or makes them not an equal member of humanity is in some sense the most perverse denial of our very nature.

I think when trying to debate something, the idea should be to try to convince the other person. That sounds stupidly obvious, but it's really not. Imagine you're debating somebody over something and resorted to an argument over the exact meaning of terms that, to people who might not share your worldview, would be completely obvious. It's unlikely you'd really be persuading them of anything.

I think the more salient point is that even if you assume clear racial distinctions, and even substantial racial differences, that still does not justify any sort of racial ideology. The movie Gattaca works as an oddly perfect metaphor for racial ideologies and its problems. Gattaca was about genetics, but it's not a coincidence that it fits perfectly with race, as it's literally the exact same problem.

Just because somebody is a part of a group with some sort of a negative correlation, does not mean that person will inherently let that trait dominate them. Incidentally the reverse is also true - just because somebody may e.g. have a high IQ does not mean they will inherently be knowledgeable or wise. It's okay to consider group tendencies, but at the end of the day individuals are able to rise far above or fall far below their "expectation", and so it's important to judge each person not by the makeup of their genetics, but by the content of their character.

Supremacy sure, but not its existence, more like the opposite: Ancestry DNA tests wouldn't work if there was no basis for it.

Race as a cultural and social construct absolutely exist, and one can perform scientific analysis using this as a basis.

Segmenting individuals into groups on the basis of race shows a large number of very real differences with irrefutable statistical significance.

I don't personally think that these are due to Intrinsic genetic properties, but that doesn't mean that there are no real and scientifically verifiable differences that break along racial lines.

It's kind of like comparing Californians to Nevadans. You don't have to think that there is a non-conditional difference in the groups to explore the apparent or manifested differences in a scientifically rigorous way. Dividing the groups by the border on a map may be arbitrary from some perspectives, but completely relevant from other perspectives

People really want there to be "one reason" for skyrocketing housing prices. Real life is not so accommodating.

The problem is multi-faceted.

Is there asset price inflation due to cheap money? Yes.

Have foreign nationals been parking their cash in real estate in certain western countries? Yes.

Has restrictive zoning and NIMBY-ism reduced the incoming supply of new homes? Yes.

Multiple things can be true at the same time, all contributing to the current state of affairs.

Multi-faceted and interrelated: a lot of housing would become a less attractive investment vehicle if near-substitutes were more plentiful. An overseas investor buying a Vancouver condo assumes that the asset will have high resale value (in addition to its use value as, e.g., a rental or airbnb). But in a saner world, housing would depreciate in value over time in proportion to its use and maintenance, like other durable goods.

That would make sense in a world where the surrounding location is completely static, but generally as a town/city grows it's much more desirable - more work for better wages, more business opportunities, economies of scale, better education... A world that doesn't respond to that with increasing price doesn't seem sane. Imagine that you start with a house in the middle of nothing. 20 years later there is a major city around you - and the house should be cheaper than it was when there was nothing? What about new housing around your house, should it have the same nearly zero price too? What even is depreciation in case of housing - my grandmother lives in a 120 year old house and I'm pretty sure my grandchildren will live there too.

Maintaining houses cost time (aka money) and money.

Not so much it'd be visible in the price - maybe 5-10% up or down, more pronounced in remote locations. The location is the important factor. Realtors work with square area pricing set for entire towns or municipalities.

That REALLY depends on the type of housing, not only on location. And it also depends on the interest rate relative to inflation.

In fact, it's really similar to dividends on stocks, just with cost instead of profit.

For a house in a suburb or rural area, maintenance (enough to keep the house in the same condition you bought it in) can easily cost as much per year (on average) as the cost-of-money (interest rate - inflation) for the debt.

And in some case much more than that.

If one such house is twice as expensive to maintain (over time) due to differences in building materials, environmental conditions, size/geometrical factors, etc, the cost of owning the house over a time period may easily be 25-50% higher for the most expensive compared to the least expensive if we assume the same purchase price.

but the land it's built on is an appreciating asset.

Purchasing a single piece of land with the expectation that it will increase in value, is similar in many ways as to do so with single stocks.

Land and stock tend to go up in value. But land also sometimes go to 0, just like stocks.

With the booming American car industry in the 50's and 60's, who would have thought that houses in Detroit could go from having a premium price in 1970 to be sold for $1 40 years later?

Who's to say SF isn't going to be next?

A single peice of land may or may not appreciate. but a diversified portfoilio of land will always appreciate if the last 10,000 years has anything to say about it.

The rockefellers and other "Old Money Family's" have the three rules to building multi-generational wealth. Land, Art and Gold.

Even for detroit, land prices have only increased since the 80's[0] and over long time horizons, i'm sure will be back in line with other "Single peice land bets".

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS19804Q

> A single peice of land may or may not appreciate. but a diversified portfoilio of land will always appreciate if the last 10,000 years has anything to say about it.

I believe there are large parts of Europe that would take centuries if not a millennium to reach the peak value it had during the Roman Empire (measured vs gold).

In general I agree, though. A portfolio is fine.

Most people tend to have most of their "savings" in a single property though.

As an example, what do you think this $2500 property cost when it was new? (Edit: make that 1965, since it's quite old.)


Short of it being on a superfund site most residential land will never have a value of 0. It's called REAL estate for a reason. Partial ownership in a company can evaporate, but 405 park west, manhattan nyc will always be there, at least for the next million years.

Some actually sell for $1 ($0 may be technically more difficult), some may sell for less than 10% of what it was once considered worth, which is close enough to 0 for the difference to not matter much.

a person buying a condo in Vancouver generally isn't purchasing land, and if they are, then yes, the land might appreciate even as the thing built on it degrades over time due to a bunch of natural processes (e.g. wood decays)

someone buying a condo is absolutely buying land. That land just is split up across x number of condos. The appreciation that you get on the Condo, is the fact that the land is usually in a very ideal location. That's when the economics of "Going up" even makes sense.

> But in a saner world, housing would depreciate in value over time in proportion to its use and maintenance, like other durable goods.

Without any external influencing factors, a house would not typically depreciate. So a depreciating house isn't normal, there is something external causing it (like the city is going broke, lost most jobs, or environmental factors make the area bad to live in, etc).

But if all is well, a house will not depreciate if it is lived in and maintained. A house can last centuries and inflation means building an equivalent house is always more expensive later than it was to build this one.

So it is not natural to expect a house to depreciate.

Exactly! And important to recognize the interest groups behind preventing progress on each.

Fixing the issue has been stymied for too long by each pointing at the others and saying "They're the real problem!" to justify inaction / rolling back fixes on their pet interest.

All need to be addressed.

These aren't all issues though. Another contributing factor is that home/lands ownership can be inherited.

That's going to be the biggest contributer as time goes on (not right now though), as eventually all desired land will have been bought by what amounts to an oligarchy.

Honestly, land/homes should never be inheritable, and companies should never be able to own land altogether. Not that this would ever happen. The status quo is too profitable for the land/home owners.

>land/homes should never be inheritable

Eh, nah. But, there should be inheritance taxes set at a level which prevents the formation of a "landed gentry". Unfortunately, the issue has been demogogued to the point that middle-class people (who won't have anywhere near the assets to be taxed, as in not by an order of magnitude) treat the idea as anathema.

"Bracket creep".

The middle class is afraid of taxes that are "for the rich" being extended to tax them. And not without some reason - income tax was sold as "only for the rich".

The easiest way for the rich to decrease taxes has been to extend them to the middle class and then push for tax cuts.

Where do you get this "should"? What moral basis do you use for saying that it "should" be this way?

You conveniently forgot immigration. Canada alone has added 500.000 people to their populace since the beginning of the year.

Immigration Numbers alone are Wörth nothing. How many people emigrated. How many people died? Tell me how the Population Numbers chnaged per years instead If Just looking at Immigration.

> How many people died?

Well since Canada only has a slightly declining natural population rate, not many in comparison to births?

They added 500.000 people to their populace since the beginning of the year. The births are on top of that.

It‘s not true that immigration numbers are worth nothing. Immigration happens mostly in densely populated areas, thereby further increasing home prices.

> It‘s not true that immigration numbers are worth nothing.

Conveniently replying to something I never said. Clever.

You‘re right.

My point still stands.

Just shy of 1% of people die each year (~389,000 people) but the birth rate is just over 1%. That means all immigration counts towards the pop increase

Uh, it's not strange at all to expect a single cause when a system fails. Rather, there's often a chain of failure but with one thing at the head. You can look at how a car breaks down - you go from a single belt failing to a damage spread around.

Your list can be easily sorted this way (Notably, foreign nationals with money are just an instance of asset price inflation, in no way an instance of "nuance" or something).

I see the chain of causation thus - a flood of printed money has increased the value of all capital assets (some of that money appears as the money of foreigners and some of domestic investors, some as hedge funds, etc). Housing has been a focus and areas with restricted supply are where the money has been most attracted (it's spread more and more as the scale increases - a key point of the gp).

Right, but when you’re driving 100km/h down the road, hitting a moose will slow you down a whole lot more than a bird.

Is there any discussion in the scaling/proportion of a given facet when these get brought up?

When the ground screw came loose the voltage coming out of the flap switch traveled back up the feathering ground, causing the system to think the feathering switch was activated.

When part of an electrical circuit starts to "float" like this - becoming no longer anchored to some global reference voltage (usually chassis ground is considered 0V) - the observed voltages in other parts of the system can take on really byzantine values.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact