@sohois's banner p

sohois


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 06:51:38 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 477

sohois


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 06:51:38 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 477

Verified Email

Neighborhoods aren't fungible

Do you actually believe this? Do people really consider that "ABC Street", with its rows of one story suburban houses 10 minutes from nearby amenities is somehow different from "XYZ Street" with its rows of one story suburban houses 10 minutes from nearby amenities?

After all, if there is one constant in the property market, it is that people are constantly on the lookout for bigger, better housing. Do people's revealed preferences suggest that a large number of people really think that their neighbourhood is the only one that is nice and with good people?

I will accept there are a handful of places that you really can't replicate: a New York brownstone, a London Georgian terrace. But these places are already incredibly expensive and desirable. No amount of new building will make these areas any less desirable and expensive.

And if you want to talk aesthetics in particular, in some cases it is the nimby restrictions which cause the shortage of these types of housing! I can't talk for the US, but here in the UK the rise of the generic tower block and hideous "Deanobox" is overwhelmingly driven by property regulations.

So your homeless shelter doesn't get built near your neighbourhood, or anywhere else in your city. Now what? You've addressed the point that such shelters will impose externalities on those living near them, but shelters themselves are not the cause, the homeless people are. And the lack of shelters will not actually remove those homeless people.

Perhaps they simply congregate in your city centre, making it increasingly unpleasant to be in as happened in many major American cities. Maybe they just start congregating in a random place, pitching their tents in some neighbourhood for no apparent reason - and perhaps they pick your neighbourhood, and you've got the problem anyway. What's the solution to this?

Obviously, with the homeless there are non-housing related options: you could try and simply ship them away to some other area, or have the police be much harsher on vagrancy and imprison many of them. In the first case, what's to stop these other areas from sending them back, or the homeless themselves from simply returning? Will you end up in an expensive cycle of carting the homeless back and forth? For the second, what about prison capacity? I can't imagine prison construction is any more popular than shelter construction, so where do you plan to build the extra prisons needed for the homeless population?

Admittedly, this example only applies to homeless shelters, and there are other examples like loud or foul smelling factories which might be better.

Let's turn to the housing question instead. As many of the other replies have noted, there is nothing wrong with wanting a nice neighbourhood, filled with familiar people. A lot of poor people are just unpleasant to be around and bring issues with them, and high housing prices do act as a barrier. But I think nimbys making this argument are not being logical or following the idea through to its conclusion.

I assume you're a homeowner in Madison, right? Maybe your house is worth $1 million or something. But I'm also going to assume that this is not a particularly large or impressive house, given the pressures on housing costs you mentioned? If we remove those restrictions and start heavily increasing density in the area, then perhaps your area will become less pleasant, with more bad people around.

Except: you'll still have the capacity to afford $1 million in housing. That's not going to vanish just because there are more houses in the area. Even in the yimby paradise of Japan, they succeeded in keeping property prices at the same level for ~20 years, not actually in lowering them - and if there was some unprecedented success in lowering housing costs, this would almost certainly take many years to accomplish, given existing homeowners time to realize value.

So now, instead of living in your $1 million 3 bed suburban house surrounded by other $1m suburban houses, you move to a $1 million 6 bed McMansion, surrounded by other McMansions. Your ability to spend money to preserve a certain living situation has not changed. What that money can buy has improved.

There is an argument that this only applies up to a limit: if you're already wealthy and can afford a 20 room mansion, there's no real room to move up. But putting aside the fact that this is a tiny niche of the population, if you have that kind of money there is already a solution: just buy land. Give yourself a couple of acres around your house. Don't want an apartment complex to block your view? Buy the land there, pay an appropriate fee to cover the loss to society.

I don't disagree with your point, but I'm not sure that West is the best example; I'd be very surprised if he was unable to produce extremely popular records or sell out concerts in the future, and so wouldn't say that his career is finished. But West would be a rare exception

This is a classic "lack of charity", accusing your ideological opponents of not holding the views they say they do based on basically nothing

Sounds like you would have liked it less if you actually knew League a little - everyone knows Jinx as a crazy murderhobo, so there was no subversion since you would expect some traumatic event to create her.

That makes sense for the racism analogy, but I have no idea how the eugenics stuff went in there and no one, not Jemisin or her editors, noticed what it was

Strongly anti-recommend Beware of Chicken, it becomes embarrassingly bad after the first book

The Broken Earth trilogy is quite a bizarre read from a cultural perspective because of how it mangles its messaging despite ostensibly being very progressive. A straussian reading* of the book would have you thinking that eugenics is good and correct and racism is absolutely the right choice. But Jemisin's public notoriety clearly rules out that she's trying to do something like that, so you have to assume she is just really incompetent at creating a consistent political message - except that the books themselves are still really good, so I have no idea how it ended up so muddled.

*So the book is about a world that is riddled with massive, years-long natural disasters. Human towns are all organized by caste, with people set apart as good workers or breeders or administrators and so on. The towns are advised to maintain good ratios of these castes and to encourage breeding that helps this. This is never described as eugenics or really discussed within the books, it is just accepted as the right thing.

The main characters of the book are from a race blessed with magical, geomancy-like powers. This race is discriminated against harshly and called "roggers" or something obvious like that, I can't remember exactly. However, because of their power, every member of this race is basically capable of slaughtering entire towns, and children often have very little control over their powers and are shown accidentally killing other children. In this context, the fear people have of them is clearly the correct stance and in most cases it would be wise to avoid the geomancers or require them to be closely controlled.

It's entirely because they have the World Cup. You don't see anyone really going after the likes of Kuwait or the UAE.

The oil sheikhdoms have supplied a truly stonking amount of that money

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of football fans see this as a massive negative. And would argue that the main impact of all of these oil sheik owners has been major transfer fee and wage inflation. There was more than enough money to go around pre-2010

no gays, jews, beer drinkers or other (to them) degeneracy

FIFA did not agree to this. There were many agreements about allowing alcohol, not persecuting gays or public displays of affection, and accommodating Jews. But once it got close enough to the WC that FIFA would look too stupid cancelling it, Qatar simply reneged on all of their promises.

don't get me wrong, I think lockdowns are almost certainly the greatest government disaster outside of war, but I don't think the economic arguments against them do much when compared to life years lost vs life years saved and the moral argument against arbitrary restrictions on freedom.

One of the reasons why lockdowns perform poorly in data measuring lockdown vs no lockdown seems to be that people largely restricted their own behaviour such that you had many people voluntarily locking down. This can be seen in graphs showing collapses in things like restaurant visits before any lockdowns are introduced.

So there's definitely a question of whether no lockdowns wouldn't have seen many negative economic impacts anyway. And, as you mentioned with places like Sweden, we live in a globalized world. Supply chain impacts from other countries locking down - especially china - would still have hit if some nations decided not to follow lockdown orthodoxy.

If you had bought $100 dollars worth of bitcoin you could have been a millionaire. No other investments have been quite so explosive.

Whereas me and other old-fashioned types like me were pointing out all along that thinking you know how to do charity better than all the groups that have ever done it over the history of humanity is boundless conceit, and no it doesn't matter if you use financial analysis and statistics and all the rest of the jargony tools

I'm not sure how this really relates to SBF. Is it a tenet of EA that they are better at divining sources of ethical funds than normal charities? From what I can tell, the purpose of EA has always been that they would be better at spending funds effectively, not sourcing funds. That a big donor proved to be engaging in criminal actions doesn't really have anything to do with EA, does it?

No subsequent event has made me regret that decision.

If you had bought bitcoin or ethereum in 2012 you would likely have much greater wealth now. So this seems a very odd statement, unless you don't care at all about money

Rationalism has a big overlap with EA, but EA does not have a big overlap with rationalism. EA has grown significantly beyond its origins in rat-spheres

Google hires dozens of people from the business program I did every year (which might sound like nothing but it's just one program) to essentially be sales development and account managers for ads.

The responses below have already explained the scandals that brought Boris down, but another point is that Boris failed to get any credit in the bank; after the Brexit deal, his government basically achieved nothing despite a large majority.

There were plenty of external factors that Boris had no control over, for which he was pretty unlucky. Covid, of course. Even if Boris had stuck to the original plan of "let it rip" and herd immunity, the rest of the world is still going to lockdown, destroying supply chains and driving inflationary forces. British borrowing would be in a better place at least, but that wouldn't stave off inflation and a recession.

The invasion of Ukraine is probably still happening. In fact the response to this was one of Boris's few successes, so if it didn't happen he wouldn't be better off. And even if he had immediately commissioned a dozen nuclear power plants after the GE, there is nothing he could have done about the energy crisis which engulfed Europe, due to the blunders of Germany.

But there is plenty he could have done. Immigration was a major driver of Brexit, with voters eager for reductions to both legal and illegal migration. Yet the Tories responded to heavy reductions in EU immigration by massively expanding visa numbers to other nations. And they have seemingly done nothing for waves of English channel crossings that have occupied papers day after day.

Another big promise was "leveling up", spreading economic benefits to left-behind areas of the country that had switched to the Tories and reducing the dependence on London. Other than the continued lumbering forward of the HS2 rail line, I can't recall a single policy that might have done anything about this.

There's actually a far more interesting example than Boris: Kwasi Kwarteng, the recently departed chancellor.

Kwarteng has a double first & a PhD from Cambridge, and was a Kennedy scholar at Harvard. Unlike Boris and most other politicians, his degrees weren't in PPE and other broad subjects, but in economics, so he should have been primed for a position as chancellor. He even had relevant experience in hedge funds, rather than just being a former journalist, again like so many other politicians.

Kwarteng might well have the most impressive academic achievements of anyone in the House of Parliament today. And yet he blundered terribly with his mini-budget, seemingly unaware that the markets would not look kindly to low-tax and high-spend in the middle of major economic turbulence.

How exactly did someone who is probably top 1% in intelligence and in a relevant area for his skillset perform so poorly? At least with someone like Robert McNamara you can point to the Vietnam war being a very complex and difficult issue.

The original comment suggests that the US playerbase for LoL is higher than other nations. I would imagine that Chess also has the largest number of players coming from the US compared to other nations. Both are different from football, in which the US playerbase is dwarfed by other nations

LoL doesn't involve any physical exertion, nor does it rely on reaction time or fast twitch movements like many other competitive video games. There is 'micro' involved, but all the top players will have equivalent skills, meaning everything comes down to macro gameplay. Just because it is a childish game with a toxic reputation shouldn't blind you to the fact that being good at it requires mental skill more than anything else.

The ChinaTalk substack is a pretty big one for Chinese news

https://www.chinatalk.media/

It's more of a general China politics/culture substack than just translations, but it does contain plenty of translated articles and interviews as well

also, while the language stuff probably isn't of interest, you may enjoy Slow Chinese. It's an advanced Mandarin blog, but perfectly readable for English readers who just want insights into current events

https://newsletter.slowchinese.net/

I just cannot believe any studio would be so careless as to commit such a serious misfire.

How so? The history of production studios is littered with big bets that turned into disasters. Streaming services especially have had hundreds of hyped failures in their recent pasts. Plus, it is not as though RoP is actually a Waterworld or Heaven's Gate or similar; as you say, the perspective is that it isn't a "ground breaking masterpiece".

And how hard is it to make a ground breaking masterpiece? If we again look into film and TV history, the only thing we see from massive budgets is a tendency for productions to look expensive. There has never really been a way to guarantee high quality just from pumping money into something.

The so-called Golden age of TV appears to largely be creator driven if anything. But that's not really a guarantee either. Assuming that you could even convince a David Milch or Matthew Weiner to come and spend years on your Lotr indulgence instead of something they find interesting, there aren't really safe bets there. Both the above had recent flops, Weiner for Amazon Studios in fact. Even if you made the argument they could just hire Peter Jackson, one only needs to look at the Hobbit films.

I believe there was an article linked here which spoke of one of the big issues in current TV - not enough show runners. Streaming has become so voracious that everyone who has the skills to make TV is already locked into contracts. So maybe the relative no-names that Amazon hired were simply the best available? I'm sure there was a stringent enough interview process for them. Perhaps they hoped that they would grow into the role, and it didn't work out?

Maybe I'm missing your point, but I'd imagine all the people worrying about AI art are not thinking of GPT-3 and stable diffusion. They are thinking of GPT-4/5 and stable diffusion 2. With the rates at which the models have been improving in recent years, it hardly seems fanciful that the next generation of these language models and image generators will be human or super-human level, not sub-human.