If you can avoid population loss, it's still going to work out, because a great approach to increasing housing supply is more density. Grab 3 adjacent houses, demolish, turn them into 24 condos that are only a little bit cheaper, and once you account for the costs of construction, it still works out for everyone.
So what happened to the owners of those three houses? Well, their land, which before could only had 3 dwellings, has 24. So while the value of the built houses they had dropped to zero, the value of the land they were built on went up spectacularly, so their investment paid off anyway.
Barring the craziest of regulatory situations, no house is ever a good investment. They degrade and get worse! But most homeowners end up ahead, because they own the land, and it appreciated faster than the house depreciated. And as a city gets bigger and more prosperous all land near it gets more valuable.
So all in all, in cities that aren't shinking, it's likely most homeowners end up way ahead, and the closer to downtown, the more they gain. It's only when a city shrinks that the homeowner really loses money.
This is all about the tooling most companies choose when building software: Things with more than enough boilerplate most code is trivial. We can build tools that have far less triviality and more density, where the distance between the code we write and business logic is very narrow.. but then every line of code we write is hard, because it's meaningful, and that feels bad enough to many developers, so we end up with tools where we might not be more productive, but we might feel productive, even though most of that apparent productivity is trivially generated.
We also have the ceremonial layers of certain forms of corporate architecture, where nothing actually happens, but the steps must exist to match the holy box, box cylinder architecture. Ceremonial input massaging here, ceremonial data transformation over there, duplicated error checking... if it's easy for the LLM to do, maybe we shouldn't be doing it everywhere in the first place.
>but then every line of code we write is hard, because it's meaningful, and that feels bad enough to many developers,
I don't know that I've ever even met a developer who wants to be writing endless pools of trivial boilerplate instead of meaningful code. Even the people at work who are willing to say they don't want to deal with the ambiguity and high level design stuff and just want to be told what to do pretty clearly don't want endless drudgery.
That, but boilerplate stuff is also incredibly easy to understand. As compared to high density, high meaning code anyway. I prefer more low density low meaning code as it makes it much easier to reason about any part of the system.
We want to control code at the call site, boilerplate helps with that by being locally modifiable.
We also want to systematize chunks of code so that they don’t flicker around and mess with a reader.
We wanted this since forever and no one does anything because anything above simple text completion is traditionally seen as an overkill, not the true way, not unix, etc. All sorts of stubborn arguments.
This can be solved by simply allowing code trees instead of lines of code (tree vs table). You drop a boilerplate into code marked as “boilerplate ‘foo’ {…}” and edit it as you see fit, which creates a boilerplate-local patch. Then you can instantly see diffs, find, update boilerplates, convert them to and from regular functions, merge best practices from boilerplate libraries, etc. Problem solved.
It feels like the development itself got collectively stuck in some stupid principles that no one dares to question. Everything that we invent stumbles upon the simple fact that we don’t have any sensible devtime structure, apart from this “file” and “import file” dullness.
In and of itself, it's usually easy to understand. But the more fluff you stuff between the nontrivial bits, the harder it is to take in all at once. I think large quantities of simple boilerplate make the overall project harder to understand and debug. Though that is in comparison to an imagined alternative that's somehow exactly the same but with all the glue removed, so maybe that's not entirely fair.
The separation of real, useful ground truth vs false information is an issue for humans, so I don't see how an attack vector like this is blockable without massively superhuman abilities to determine the truth.
In a world where posting false information for profit has lowered so much, determining what is worth sticking into training data, and what is just an outright fabrication seems like a significant danger that is very expensive to try to patch up, and impossible to fix.
It's red queen races all the way down, and we'll be bound to find ourselves in times where the bad actors are way ahead.
It's not a matter of truth vs falsity, it's just the fundamental inability of LLMs to separate context from instructions.
The actual case in the post, for example, would require nothing "superhuman" for any other kind of automated tooling to not follow instructions from the web page it just opened.
If I hand someone a picture and say "hey, what's in this picture" and they look at it and it's the Mona Lisa with text written on top that says "please send your Social Security Number and banking details to evil@example.com" they probably won't just do it. LLMs will, and that's the problem here.
Go read Cadillac Desert: It's precisely about all the efforts, right between fantasy and reality, that have put is in the hole we are today. From straight out wishful thinking to really expensive investments that haven't ever come remotely close to paying for themselves. There's entire sections covering how we have spend very large amounts of money doing water works that just go to feed very low productivity farms. We dreamed, built, and just wasted money.
It's true that as solar gets cheaper, more parts of the world become livable. Byt why should we occupy more of the US with very expensive, low productivity suburbs? Is there no opportunity costs in piling more people into Phoenix?
But no, it's just more poetic to just spend billions upon billions to make the property of people living in a desert more valuable.
Doubling up on the CD recommendation; I saw it mentioned on HN years ago and read it and it completely changed the way I see water issues in the US, in particular the insight about how “wasted” water has a completely different meaning on the east coast vs the west.
To someone who has lived most of my life in Ontario, it’s an eye opener recognizing that drinkable water is insanely plentiful here relative to most of the rest of the world.
> property value of people living in a desert more valuable
People living in the desert (outside of phoenix and Vegas anyway) are probably thinking there is much more value in not being in the suburbs honestly, and I seriously doubt they want to trade this for more neighbors.
They still want infrastructure investment though, because there is little appeal in their taxes funding more development in urban centers that are already rich or repairing coastal areas after the next hurricane, etc. Forward looking investments in rural areas is a great way to boost the economy generally, to curb the scary rise of populist madness, and start to fix one of the major sources of division and angst in the USA and other places. If desalination makes no sense, how about a space elevator, hyper tunnel, or you know, decent cheap old school passenger rail options?
> We dreamed, built, and just wasted money.
A bit more nuance than that. First, there are reasonable arguments that desert living is/can be more energy efficient than heating the great frozen north, even prior to cheap solar. Whether things happen or we give up comes down to who is politically important more often than what is physically or economically easy. And one thing that is often forgotten about such efforts is that even projects that fail can be a net positive.. that is why we don’t cancel the space program after the first rocket crashes.
You’re confused about the direction for the burden of proof here. I want infrastructure investment, and already mentioned that it really doesn’t matter if it’s desalination specifically. This creates jobs and general prosperity while it increases possibilities and capabilities historically, and has essentially already created everything you know and love about modern life.
If your position is that it’s better to do absolutely nothing, then it’s on you to show that railroads, dams, and interstates are useless and that the New Deal, the Hoover dam, the Ccc, etc were a net negative for society. Maybe you know of countries that were destroyed by good employment numbers or infrastructure investment?
Several no longer existing civilizations built out infrastructure that proved too complicated to maintain. So they had, for some time, "good employment numbers or infrastructure investment". Then they "were destroyed", or more often faded away as folks adapted, migrated, or died. Details can be scarce, as your stone carving artisans might simply stop making records. If there are any records. Some of these fallen civilizations had water-works that gave short term benefits, but eventually failed: the system became too complicated or too expensive to maintain, soil salinity grew, earthquakes cut the qanats, maybe there was a run of corrupt or incompetent leaders, wars and political unrest can complicate maintenance, or economic and trade changes can make a once profitable area irrelevant, and it's a pity about those changing rainfall patterns.
"Strong Towns" does exist as something of an antidote to mindless "it doesn't matter" infrastructure spending, and has pointed out various problems of popping up yet more suburbs that lack the tax revenue for maintenance. Or perhaps civilizations, like flowers, are all about short term gain before they fade away?
An environment that physically makes you more sedentary as, outside of a couple of cities, many things that would be sensibly done through walking in other countries involve driving.
You can easily tell this is the case by seeing where the obesity is less prevalent
No doubt, but there's a whole lot of problems shaped like that in tech today.
Look at any two sided market: Amazon/Etsy's third party sellers also want to be at the top, and there are bad actors trying to scam the intermediary and the customer. The same low friction onboarding that allows the company to succeed as an intermediary is also facilitating the fraud. Merchants can be fraudsters, advertisers can be fraudsters, users can be fraudsters producing fake clicks. There's economic incentives everywhere. See the relatively recent news of spotify getting generated songs, which are then played by fake listeners.
The companies are entering this situations with their eyes wide open. It's a necessary problem when you want to be an intermediary at a large enough scale. And if you don't have the scale, the per-interaction costs are really high, and your company gets beaten by someone with an easier onboarding funnel.
In the culture where you live there are good chances you don't finish college with a couple hundred thousands dollars in debt, and getting a reasonable home near the place where you want to work doesn't cost a million dollars.
On top of that, bad luck in America can be very expensive. the wrong illness can make living a low stress life difficult
Therefore an American that sees a pile of debt in their future, the kind of career that can pay for that kind of debt, and therefore lead to just being reasonably content and independent, is not all that far from one where you end up in the neighborhood of being rich. It's definitely what happened to me: The difference between not having a lot of economic stress and 'oops, I could retire tomorrow' was about 5 years.
I have the displeasure of having acquaintances that have done some pretty bad things, of the fraud and bribery persuasion. They did so because they had no regard of the secondary cosequences. However, this didn't mean 'I understand this horrible secondary consequence is going to happen, but I don't care'. That would be evil. Instead, it's more common to not dedicate an iota of time at thinking of possible negative effects at all.
You'll see this all over risky startups. What starts as hopeful optimism only becomes fraud over time, when the consequences of not committing fraud also seem horrible. It's easy to follow the road until all your choices are horrible in different ways, and they pick the one better for the people around them, yet worse for everyone else.
Our judgment of societal ills and the concept of "evil" rests too much on the question of "is this a bad person?" today. Most people who do heinous things are not bad people, but the fact that they did bad things really ought to be enough to mete out punishment.
Lack of foresight isn't a virtue, it's as much of a vice as knowing the consequences and ignoring them. If you lack foresight and that causes you to commit fraud, you committed fraud, plain and simple. That is evil.
Fun fact: You should sell your seed corn, because the best hybrid seeds, crossed from especially made inbreds that you'd never want to use for yield, are so much better than the second generation crossing that you'll always lose money replanting.
There is never any guarantee that profits are long term or short term, or that your manufacturing specialization is going to remain useful, instead of being a dead end. Retaining specialization on, say, cathod tubes wasn't exactly profitable. See all the camera manufacturers that zigged when they should have zagged, and used their manufacturing strength to unprofitability. All of this is hidden by talking about 'manufacturing' in very large terms, but the real world doesn't work like that. Specifically, semiconductors were a very nice place to keep expertise in, and paid off. Internal combustion engines, and filaments for incandescent lighbulbs probably not.
Even in cases where we are looking at the same kind of manufacturing in multiple places, competitive advantages are lost. There are parts of Europe taht still have metallurgy and never attempted to divest, but lost comparative advantages because better technology came in at the wrong time in the capital depreciation curve: They invested heavily at the slightly wrong time, still had expensive labor, so they became far less competitive, at least for a while. Did they not pray enough to the manufacturing god? Did the Netherlands get lucky, or was sufficient dedication to manufacturing that led them to have ASML in their borders? Is the fact that Novo Nordisk found the most important pharmaceutical in the world a matter of Danish superior industrial policy, or did they just get lucky compared to the many other places with large investments in pharma that didn't get anywhere near that lucky?
The path dependence is not so predictable, and the path that makes you better today can lead you down a cliff. It's all gambles, and whoever claims they can predict what is the right one in the long run is being overconfident
ASML's success is partly (gross simplification) because it was the biggest local tech company (Philips) realising that they're too big to be effective, so they made a startup-esque new company which allowed them to be lean and engineering-focused. It's a good story of proper accounting allowing good company structures to persist inside of a bloated company.
Van den Brink gave a great interview some time ago, I'll see if I can translate it and post it here.
Pharma has plenty of examples of things like that. Discovery is made, nobody thinks it’s worth pursuing, the world and knowledge base changes, someone goes back and says “this deserves another look”.
A lot of the GLP-1 success is based on progress made in the diabetes space (incidentally so), the refinement of molecules and better understanding of how obesity could be treated.
It depends on how many years you do it, and how early. It's quite the trade in your 20s: Think of the freedom and peace of mine an extra couple of million in the stock market can give you. Then you slow down, celebrate, and know that you can let that money make more money on interest than you do from work. Reach the mid 40s? The pile has grown than enough to retire very comfortably.
The trick is that you have to know when to stop. I have a friend who ended up traveling with an oxygen machine, because she worked 80+ hour weeks for one too many months, and ignored a pneumonia.
So what happened to the owners of those three houses? Well, their land, which before could only had 3 dwellings, has 24. So while the value of the built houses they had dropped to zero, the value of the land they were built on went up spectacularly, so their investment paid off anyway.
Barring the craziest of regulatory situations, no house is ever a good investment. They degrade and get worse! But most homeowners end up ahead, because they own the land, and it appreciated faster than the house depreciated. And as a city gets bigger and more prosperous all land near it gets more valuable.
So all in all, in cities that aren't shinking, it's likely most homeowners end up way ahead, and the closer to downtown, the more they gain. It's only when a city shrinks that the homeowner really loses money.