skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The real solution to a housing problem is to incentivize and facilitate the building of more housing.

You need to have some degree of control. I live in a suburb close to a tech hub in WA. They built a lot of housing in the past 3 years. And I mean a lot. At least a couple of hundred of apartments on the market every year, after raising 3-4 buildings at the same time, in a town of 20k people.

One would think that the price would go down based on supply and demand, right? More than half of the apartments were empty while the management companies were not budging on the price. Nobody wanted to go below 2k/month for a one bedroom and they were sitting around with empty apartments. Finally they managed to reel in some suckers by offering 2-3 months free rent but again, no rent was going below 2k so the next year, you pay up or move out.

Right now, people are moving out and the apartment buildings aren't what you'd call full but again, the rent is not going down. It actually increased. Because what happens is that they're owned by large landlord corporations which can take the hit for a year or two to keep the prices up. I know this because I used to live in one. They increased my rent (years ago) from 1.2k to 1.7k and I moved out. The apartment was on the market afterwards for about a year and they didn't try too hard to get new tenants, they just posted it periodically on Craigslist. I tried to negotiate to bring it down to 1.4k and they said no. It was way profitable for anyone to keep the price up, although they lost a year of rent from it.
Not true. Choice is only as good as your options and also depends on the choices of other people around you. My phone records people standing next to me. They might not have chosen to install the apps on my phone, but they’re subject to the surveillance of my device for example.
In a vacuum, yes. Just as much as on paper 0.1+0.2=0.3 but in most floating point implementations it doesn’t.

In application Toronto has seen the opposite effect to what you describe. We hear this argument over and over as we just had our rent control stripped, but it’s counter to the experience.

Here’s one write-up:

https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/11/people-why-universal-re...
Must be just different in experiences (or just how we define the woke movement) because I've found a lot of "woke" people to be fairly understanding but as I said that might just be the people I've met.
Advertising the Altair 8800
>” ...real solution to the housing crises is the abolishment of professional landlords... Why [] support a system where people can own many properties[...]
Treating housing as an investment vehicle is fundamentally incompatible...

It’s akin to saying most transit should be gov owned: cars, trucks, trains, planes, ships... they may allow you to own one private vehicle.
I am currently on this train.

Having used rkt in the past, I went to revisit it recently only to find this: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2019/08/16/cncf-archives-the-rkt-pr...

I am so extremely disappointed in the CNCF as rkt (at the time, at least) seemed to be more "production ready" than Docker.

Are there any real alternatives? Is the answer "find something else that uses containerd in a more friendly way?" Is the answer "try to use podman/buildah, which are weird in their own way?"
Article you posted is mostly P/R fluff. I would prefer a human taking my order. Automating this stuff has 2 benefits, reduced costs while still selling over-priced sub-par food. Second, being able to upsell using video and voice technology. Are either of these good for consumers, not particularly. Nor are they good for employees. They are potentially good for management and ownership.

That's pretty sad outcome to all this. Optimizing increasing the number of calories people are eating by up-selling sugary drinks and other add-on items or larger sizes (was recently at a McDonalds and that's exactly what their large ordering terminal was doing) and optimizing for increasing people's weight.

Imagine using the same technology to reduce people's weight. But that's not usually the way to profit for fast food companies like McDonald's.
There are lots of people in the comments here talking about how long it would take to send a probe, or how many generations a generation ship would have, but it seems clear to me that that's not how humans are going to go to other solar systems.

Once we solve mind uploading (assuming that it's possible), we can send a blob of grey goo on a solar sail at a very high acceleration to another solar system. It can shed half of the sail and bounce the laser back to decelerate.

The grey goo would go and convert part of asteroid or something to computronium, and then we'd upload a bunch of humans over to the other solar system.
Obviously, but part of that is having your property taxed at those market rates, businesses and landlords got together to pass an amendment to the CA constitution that prohibits any part of CA from increasing the assessed value of your property at more than 2%.

You can't have it both ways: saying you should have free reign in determining the value of your property, while also claiming the government can't tax you according to that value.
That's not true. In central planned economies, the members of the Party eat very well. /sarc
What in your second paragraph doesn’t apply without rent control? In other words, what makes 7% the magic number? Your entire argument seems based on market forces (if you raise too much, your tenant leaves and if there’s no wealthy people to replace them, you're stuck). How is this not the case without rent control? Do wealthy tenants somehow appear without rent control?
Teenager loses memory every two hours after being kicked in the head
Lessig's theory of anonymous donations seems to have been carefully developed for the sole purpose of exonerating Ito, who is Lessig's friend. It's not like there's some new revelation that's come out since Lessig wrote his piece.
It's not a question of possibility, but a question of probability. Lots of things are possible with very tiny probabilities. That's why we do research, to estimate the probability of a phenomenon being true, in this case making money daytrading.

The research in the paper suggests that the probability that your friends are making more than a teller is 0.4%, therefore the probability that they are making less than a teller is 99.6%. So, if you have a hundred friends in daytrading, only one of them made more than minimum wage, two of them made money but at or below minimum wage, and ninety-seven of them lost money. Therefore, if they all told you they were making money, most (97%) of them were lying.
If that's what demand has done to pricing then yes. Where are rents increasing 100% per year?
Having great documentation would mean less sales in support contracts.
Rent control does indeed make the housing shortage worse in the following ways:

- It makes it so new renters subsidize the old ones, raising prices for newly vacant places, defeating the purpose of controlling costs. It also doesn't offer tons of protection from boom/bust cycles, as mainly those riding the boom will be able to afford absurd prices in highly regulated places like SF — Where a 1br can fetch 3.7k/mo (!!)

- "FU, got mine" attitude disengages renters from organizing the same way NIMBY homeowners do. For example, SF renters could easily outnumber homeowners to allow much more housing to be built, but ~70% of housing stock there falls under rent control.

I do want to be clear that I fully support controlling costs in some manner, however, this desperately needs to be tied to a solution that results in more housing.
This phrase is repeated frequently throughout these comments but never with an explanation. I think the opposite of that phrase is true; that in these circumstances, rent control is part of what will enable an increase in the supply of housing.

The inequality gap must be lessened for there to be sustainable growth in the housing construction market; this rent control is part of that.
Ok, now there should be very little reason or objection from tenants rights folks not to pass SB-50 next session to make it easier to build density near transit. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
Seems like they have access to a goldmine of labeled training data
Often and easily?
Each year you can do less and less to limit your exposure. That argument will not old up over time. When IOT and 5G puts more devices online all of these things can be used for surveillance. This argument is not fair or realistic when looking forward a year or two.
"What drinks do you have?" "Can I get combo without the drink?" "How much cheaper is it with a water?" "My kid wants the rainbow Happy Meal toy, can we have that one please?" "What time did you stop serving breakfast?" "Do you still have McFlurries? What flavors are there?"

This won't go well.
I’m sorry, I think it’s pretty odd when you can’t set the price for your property being leased.

If you like better rates, negotiate, fix zoning, or buy. If you can’t do any of those, you should leave. The rest of the country is really not that bad.
Next they’ll come for the liquidator. The Burger King on the NYS thruway north of nyc went to touchscreen ordering. Everyone refuses to use it and there is one long line going to the one register that remained.
> but a necessary short term solution

[citation needed]

I've never seen an economist support any form of rent control.
Why not just stick a kiosk there?

In Europe most McDs have kiosks inside them... make it weatherproof / stick a roof over it, done.
There was lots of arguments about this in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20324675
it’s pretty accurate from my experience. Biased towards people who recently accepted an offer as opposed to those who have been at the same company for many years
One example I could imagine is that a landlord may not want to raise rents significantly on a long-term reliable tenant, but would want to increase rents when the reliable tenant leaves. “Market price” probably doesn’t include the cost risks of having a nightmare tenant.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

I believe you might be thinking of month-to-month, which is not a traditional lease. On all fixed term leases over a month rent cannot be changed during the term of the lease.
I would say a reasonable number of people consider the first two points to be features.
Sometimes N=2 is extremely different from N=1. Specifically when we have N=1 and we suspect that it might be unique, or extremely rare to the point that you wouldn't expect to find instances.

Sometimes N=2 is not that different from N=1 though. Specifically when you don't think the situation is necessarily that rare, you just don't have a big population to choose from. That's the situation here.

Astronomers expect to find other Earth-like planets. We suspect rocky planets aren't that rare, we know planets at comparable distances from the star are not that rare, and we know H20 is plentiful in space. The problem is one of detection. The smaller the planet, the harder it is to detect water, so most of what we've found so far is gassy giants.

A good analogy is the fact that I don't know anyone who shares my birthday. That doesn't mean I would be amazed if I were to find someone did share my birthday, cuz I have no reason to suspect my birthday is particularly rare. I just don't know that many people.
https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/265
I can see you are getting too tied up in the existing perspective you have, so I recommend you step back and revisit our discussion with a third person's perspective.

If you have a point to make instead, say it.

I don't know what you're thinking but it feels like you seem to believe that only direct actions have effect.

That's not true. Indirect actions have effect too.

Just because the government's hands are tied in drug pricing does not mean the drug companies can charge the government whatever they want (like they can charge you or I).

For one, it has sheer size and it's pretty powerful overall.

It will take an extremely risk seeking drug company to try and exploit the government and drug companies are extremely risk averse.

Let me give another example - if you interviewed for a front end job this week at either of the coasts and refused to negotiate or name a number, most companies, if not all, would still offer a six figure number because that's the market. I WOULD be surprised if anyone offered you a minimum wage even if you were actually willing to take it!

Another example - say you are driving properly on the freeway following all rules like a perfect citizen and a cop car drives by - in general you're likely to take notice of that and be more careful in the way you drive even if the cop car in no way signalled to you or otherwise expressed any interest. Even if you knew this cop was not allowed to pull you over, you still would modify your behavior. In general for the better.

Compare your change in response to all other cars driving by you - one even might have flashed its lights at you and you showed them your middle finger. You probably wont do that to this specific car though.

Or if you went to an fancy event where the organizers explicitly asked you not to bring any gifts because they knew you were going through a tough time but you saw everyone else bring in expensive gifts, you would probably go out and try and get something reasonable, despite being explicity directed otherwise.

Just because one does not actively signal, or might even be obstructed from signalling, does not mean there is a complete lack of signal.

Drug companies have more to gain from keeping the government happy than making it unhappy.

To that end, they are willing to forgo some profit.

They dont have any reason to do so for you or I.

We are at a natural disadvantage: If you needed drug "GiveLife" to not die tomorrow, you would probably give up a significant amount of your worth or even go into debt to pay for GiveLife.
You are very confused. A mortgage is definitely a cost. It's only meaningful equity if you ever sell it and get any of the money back, which is not guaranteed at all.

And only public housing would collapse the entire economy. Plenty of countries tried this, most notably the commies in Russia and in eastern Europe.
Sounds much worse than the compile time flag.
I doubt such a planet would be hydrostatically stable, though…
Only 1,050,000,000,000,000 kilometers away...
> As C++ has been contemplating moving away from exceptions, they've effectively been forced to choose between concise language abstractions or strict memory management. They seem to be moving toward the former

You don't need exception handling to handle memory allocation failure: just make your allocator return null (that's what new (nothrow) X does, after all). The question of how to handle allocation failure is easily the single most divisive question presented in the proposal, and in the face of stark division, status quo usually wins the day.
Decawave UWB is really good for positioning accuracy--like sub-centimeter level accuracy. I've seen them scatter a handful of stuff on a desk and everything figures out where it is.

Yes, it's power consumption is quite good--compared with GPS and WiFi which have abysmal power numbers for small battery powered devices.

Compared with BLE--UWB doesn't look so great in terms of power consumption. So, most things only turn UWB on when they are trying to get accurate position measurements.
Awesome, thanks for the link!
My first job was at Burger King. Working the drive thru was seen by most as a punishment. During the day it wasn't that bad but at night people were absolutely ridiculous in their behavior and expectations. It didn't help that many were drunk or under the influence of other intoxicants. Not sure how well automated systems would be able to deal with such situations. Maybe the customers simply couldn't order food unless they conformed to the system. Or maybe they'd just drive off, with the business losing a sale.

With the near ubiquity of internet connected phones and tablets, making a greater push for people parking outside the restaurant, ordering on their phone and having it delivered to their car curbside seems like the better medium to long term play. Get rid of the drive thru altogether. Likely would make the entire place safer for pedestrians too.
> It works in Europe and it can work here.

In Asia too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
Sure we do. Chuck a rock in the right direction, it'll still be a rock 111 light years later.
California hurt itself in confusion
There are unbound-checked versions of that call. You can make that simplifying assumption in your code if you'd like.
It is just a way to uglify symbols to make collisions with surrounding code less likely. C macros are not hygienic.
You don't need to confiscate anything. We have an abundance of housing stock (nationwide, many more existing homes than families to fill them). If you make it impossible to be a private landlord then these properties will decrease in value until most citizens can afford to buy a house. Public housing will only be necessary for a small percentage of outliers. New housing will be built to be sold at a modest profit and replace decaying stock, just as it is now. The only difference is owners will not be able to sit on the pot collecting rents from derelict buildings while they wait to optimize their redevelopment in a peak market.
$120,000 comes out to around $6k/mo. A mediocre studio in SF is pretty close to $3k.
I suppose you’re right about being limited but it doesn’t bother me.

Wrt to luxury apartments the optimal strat is definitely to live in larger units (3+ bedrooms) and preferably a couple or two as well. You can get your rent down pretty low while maintaining a pretty high standard of living
Welcome Manna.

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
> For a quarter-century, California law has sharply curbed the ability of localities to impose rent control. Now, the state itself has taken that step.

Yep. Because communities shouldn’t be able to decide for themselves. Make it a state law. I’m just glad that (for now) these central planners are limited to a state economy and are not in Washington.

Great news for property owners in CA. Studies show over and over rent control legislation further restricts supply[1], so the existing housing will become even more valuable!

1. https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/DMQ.pdf
Indeed. If you have a crises stemming from "not enough housing", increasing the number of potential customers for that housing is only going to make the lack of supply worse.
This rent control is a result of populism - plain and simple.

Rent control works for those already renting - and that is about it!

Everyone else suffers: those moving to the area, the landlords and those wanting to build more.
Writing catch-all laws especially ones that require law abiding people to go out of their way in order to follow them seems pretty darn dystopian but I see how one could turn a blind eye to it if it's used for something they want.
I'm assuming you are joking because JS is a dogshit language. Too slow to do anything cool
The problem is that increasing rent has no restraint in CA.

When a landlord increases rent by X% they are saying that the value of the property has increased by X%. Unfortunately businesses and landlords got together to push (and pass) prop 13 which amended the CA constitution to prevent assessed property value from increasing at more than 2% per year.

That means any time a landlord increases rent by more than 2% they are benefiting from incorrect taxable valuation. Because property taxes cover the infrastructure that supports homes + buildings (the roads, police, firefighters, teachers, etc) they are directly offloading the costs of those services onto people who don't own property: The people who don't own property then have to (in addition to insane rent increases) pay higher income taxes, in order to support those services the are functionally there to benefit the undertaxed properties.
Sounds like Eric swapped consciousness with a parallel Eric that’s now very confused about his sunburn situation
Neptune is ‘only’ 57 times the volume of Earth, whereas Jupiter is 1321 times the volume of Earth. The size range of ice/gas giants is bigger than the gap between Earth and the smallest ice giants.
Agreed. C and C++ are universal and can be used for virtually anything
A new funding model for open source software
I’m not sure what your point is? Part time employment is a thing.
No mention of leverage?
When you mess with supply and demand there are always unintended consequences. I'm currently a beneficiary of rent control and am lucky to be paying below-market rate for my apartment. It would be nice to move to another neighborhood, but it would be dumb for me to give up the savings. My neighbor pays 1/10th of what I pay for the same size apartment. Neither of us are leaving anytime soon. This is why there's no liquidity in the SF housing market. They're trapped and live in constant fear of being evicted.

On a philosophical level, why should my landlord be subsidizing our housing costs? If we want to make housing more affordable for low-income families, surely there's a more equitable way to finance it.
LinkedIn has an entirely different pay scale from Microsoft
not considered: you don't know what he's talking about
Affordable Status Page Service with All Features
I guess it shows how out of touch you guys are. When I moved here EVERYONE told me to find a rent controlled place. After hearing some horror stories I think you would be crazy to live in a non-rent controlled place.

Heck, I’ve never heard of non-rent control before moving to the US. No surprise there’s so many homeless people.

PS: look at what your free market did to the US healthcare.
Here's something interesting I'd like to share (if you don't already know of it):
https://news.ycombinator.com/over?points=70

For the past ~2 years I've only been looking at HN through this link. This limits the amount of listings I can see, while at the same time ensuring "higher quality" dopamine rushes. It's worked out for me quite well with giving me what I want to see, while wasting less time sifting through uninteresting stuff. Pretty much like reddit's top vs. hot functionality, just changing my defaults.
I got into the Wait Calculation[1] a few weeks back and made a Jupyter notebook out of it.

At our current max speed (692,000 km/hr, stated max speed of Parker Space Probe), it would take about 173,000 years to get to that planet.

We could instead choose to Wait and grow our tech. By picking a constant annual growth rate and then doing some calculus to find the minimum, we can calculate the shortest possible time it will take for us to arrive there.

One common recommendation for annual energy growth rate is 1.4%, and then taking the square root to get velocity growth rate since velocity has a square root relationship with energy.

By plugging that in, we can minimize our time by growing for 1020 years, and then traveling for 144 years, for a total time-from-now at 1164 years.

Another paper[2] estimated an annual velocity growth rate of 4.72%, quite a bit faster. Plugging that in, it says we should wait 195 years for a travel time of about 21 years, or 216 years overall. This is of course incorrect since it assumes being able to travel FTL. So if you instead look at how long it would take to get to light speed travel at that rate, you're looking about about 159 years, or arriving at the planet at a time-from-now of about 270 years.

Of course, if you're seeking to minimize time-from-now from the perspective of a traveler, maybe you'd take off sooner. Kind of a tradeoff - less time to wait for the traveler, more time to wait for the home planet. I haven't figured out that part of the math yet.

[1] https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1m...
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01481