HN user
Thanks for the feedback. We're aware of this issue, and it will be fixed (labeled correctly) in our next release.
Whisper small and base are coming in the next release as well, so look out for that in the next week or two.
Hi HN! I'm a member of the team that worked hard on AI Hub and AI Hub Models for the last few years. Excited to see our work show up here!!
I also encourage you take a look at our GitHub repository: https://github.com/quic/ai-hub-models
If you have questions or feature requests, you can reach out to us on Slack (https://join.slack.com/t/qualcomm-ai-hub/shared_invite/zt-2d...) or file an issue on GitHub / Huggingface. We are pretty responsive!
To truly understand perf, ideally one should compare many types and sizes of models. I suspect some model types perform substantially better on the newer ANE / OS compared with others.
I think the economy is hitting real, hard barriers in resource extraction, energy usage, and number of people that buy and sell. That’s where stagnation comes from.
The real economy will stagnate. AI can automate some work and intensify future technological discoveries, but that won’t make energy any cheaper, clean our environment, create more humans, or make resources as easily extractable as they were 100 years ago.
The real economy can’t grow too much more than it’s current size, at least in the physical world.
Even if I do retain a profit when selling, we’re going to be trading down to a worse house. Payments for the same house now based on the Redfin estimate and current interest rates are more than double.
Given how bad the tech sector is doing now that the real world is back post lockdowns, I’m not comfortable taking on that much more of a payment.
It’s really a challenge.
Do I love my 5br house in Seattle that I pay only $3200 a month for? Yes. Low rates and low prices made that possible for a brief moment in 2020.
Will we be here forever? No… I don’t think I want to raise kids in the city. Everything is densifying and that’s not for me. But as rates continue to rise, the financial cost of moving seems increasingly large. We might be stuck here for the entire mortgage term if prices drop below 2020 prices, which is feasible if rates continue to rise for the next few years. Payment a few thousand a month higher, purchase price a few hundred k lower.
I could always rent it out. I really do want to preserve this old house and it would need to go the right tenant that takes care of it, likely for a below market rent in exchange. However, given how absolutely unfriendly rental laws are in Seattle and how little choice I’ll really have in a tenant as a result, I’m very averse to that. Maybe I’ll just leave it empty once enough time passes for the payment to be inflated away to a negligible amount.
I suspect inventory will stay low for these reasons. People either can’t move, don’t have an incentive to rent out their place, or will rent and not sell to avoid catastrophic losses.
Overcrowding isn’t an issue because it’s a subjective opinion? What? By every measure cities are more crowded than suburban areas.
Every big city I’ve been too has been dirtier than low density suburban areas of equivalent wealth.
Cities are definitely louder than suburban streets, if they’re in cul de sacs and not next to a main throughway.
Pay them better than anyone else can.
Yes. But clearly that isn’t what your community wants or they would have voted to ease zoning restrictions.
Then move somewhere that does let you build it. Your local community has made a decision to disallow whatever it is you want to construct.
Zoning laws make sure a community stays as the community desires. A community bans large apartment buildings for the same reason they ban power plants; construction benefits the property owner at the detriment of adjacent property owners.
At least be straightforward with the reasoning, then. If the mainstream YIMBY said "I want to live in your neighborhood and I can't afford it, therefore the zoning should be changed", or "you're too rich because of zoning so I want to remove it so we are more equal," I'd have more respect.
But usually it's something about how mixed use neighborhoods are better, or how someone on minimum wage can't afford to live on their own in a very expensive neighborhood. Ok, but those probably aren't the real reasons you're advocating for change. Just be direct.
Language that straightforward is surprisingly hard to find among the YIMBY croud.
I intentionally left out YIMBY moral grandstanding, because it's usually a shield to hide the real reason they feel zoning should be changed: "I can't afford your neighborhood and I want to live there"
The YIMBYs want to move to your neighborhood, so you and your neighbors are obligated to make as much space for them as needed. Oh, you like your neighborhood how it is?
Don't worry, you'll learn to love <relying on public transport instead of cars, no parking, increased traffic, blocked out sunlight, tiny and eventually no yards, large buildings next door>. Your way of living is bad because cars and sprawl are bad and YIMBYs don't like them, they think the walkable urban mixed use neighborhoods are superior, so we're going to remove the zoning to force change. Aren't those things what you want?
No? Well you'll learn to like them, because you shouldn't have power over what your neighbor can build on their property. You say your neighborhood overwhelmingly votes to keep it that way, not just you? Actually, your neighborhood shouldn't have power to vote for this zoning either, because we know what's best for your neighborhood, not you.
This is how every argument with a YIMBY goes.
I would consider zoning codes law. To argue otherwise is pedantic.
Sorry, just because you want to live somewhere, doesn’t entitle you to enough units built there for you to afford it.
I’d love to live in Atherton. But I can’t afford it. I don’t try and get more units built there when the community clearly doesn’t want that, so I choose somewhere else.
The neighborhood owns the neighborhood, and they vote to keep it low density. It’s not like there’s a single homeowner voting to control what the entire city builds.
No, I’m seeing it the correct way.
NIMBYs (the community and vast majority of single family homeowners) don’t want to see their neighborhoods overcrowded and changed completely by density, because they moved to such a neighborhood to get away from density. So they vote as a group to keep their neighborhoods nice low density places to live.
Meanwhile, YIMBY people in dense areas think they should have the final say over what SFR neighborhoods feel like and how they develop, even though they don’t even live there.
It’s never the other way around. No single family homeowner NIMBYs push back against another apartment building in an already dense area in the city nextdoor. Yet YIMBYs feel so strongly about controlling low density townships they don’t even live in that they advocate for state preemption. That preemption forces those places to change to adopt the YIMBY vision of walkability, density, public transport, and less cars, something few to none of the residents in that community want.
But his neighborhood owns his neighborhood, and they vote to continue the multifamily zoning ban. Clearly if this was only Marc’s preference, it wouldn’t be law.
Surely the solution is to build more places for people to be employed rather than overcrowding existing ones and forcing people to commute from far away. COVID showed us the office centric commuter world is not necessary. I understand some people must be onsite, but still, drastic commute reductions and spreading out of people is a good thing.
Right, so you do want to force his neighborhood to change its rules so it becomes like yours.
“Preference for me but not for thee.”
His neighborhood clearly doesn’t affect yours. Why is it so hard to leave it alone? I’m sure Marc doesn’t advocate for your neighborhood to change.
Surely then you can agree to leave his neighborhood alone and note force it to become like yours?
car-centric becomes a lot less fun when everything is a 30+ minute drive away and gas is becoming more expensive.
The funny thing is I live in a city, in transit-oriented, mid density, walkable area, and it takes 30 mins for me to get anywhere interesting outside of my neighborhood. My friends in the 'burbs can hop over to similar amenities in half the time I can.
I'm just giving you some perspective and examples of real life experience
Frankly, this comes across as a little bit condescending. Another example, a phrase like this from your first response:
And honestly, most of y’all don’t know any better
Who are "y'all"? Why don't we know any better? This comes across as hostile, like you're coming at this from the perspective of "I'm definitely right and this guy is full of it." I don't believe that's true, but that's how it read to me. Perhaps it's just the challenge of no discernible tone in text.
Also you wanted to understand the downvotes, which is also why I chose to reply
I still don't quite understand. Downvote != agree, and my comment wasn't rude or disrespectful. It's just not the majority opinion here.
Existing residents don't want apartments because they block sunlight, they cause overcrowding, they don't fit with the neighborhood's style. Frankly, as well, renters & especially landlords don't tend to take care of property or invest in the community as much as owner occupiers do, because the incentives aren't there for either of them to do so. It's not the renter's property and they can be kicked / priced out of the neighborhood at any time, so why bother to invest in it? Any investment in making your space nice means the landlord can hike your rent. On the landlord side, they know they're going to find another tenant as long as the unit is habitable enough, so in comes the "landlord special". I know this isn't universally true by any means, but the incentive structure is there.
In apartment buildings that are "transit-enabled", every apartment usually has 1 car, maybe 2, and those cars flood the local street, making quality of life worse for all existing residents. Those apartments are more likely to own cars as we look at places that are more car-centric. In suburbia, an apartment building usually comes with a huge parking lot for all the cars, which isn't great, but it's a little more palpable for people living in the area already.
Your (non-)argument that american lifestyle being car-centric is a "good thing"
It's a good thing because it allows (or, rather, allowed) the supermajority of people to have the "countryside-style" living (while being able to work) that was available only to the wealthy a century ago. At the time suburbia was "invented", people moved out of the crowded cities to these new subdivisions in masses.
is VERY different to "I enjoy suburbia and I'd like it not to be destroyed". The majority of walkability advocates argue for the following:
In a vacuum I would agree with you wholeheartedly. However, in practice, urbanists and walkability advocates almost always push increased density on neighborhoods whose residents don't want those changes. I very rarely see advocacy for building new walkable subdivisions, the only advocacy group that's even remotely close to this that I could think of is Strong Towns.
It is unimaginably expensive, it's just getting subsidized to ridiculous extents.
Yep, that's totally true. But we as a society have chosen to subsidize it. We would not continue to subsidize it if society as a whole didn't find that lifestyle worth the immense weight on government finances.
but saying the majority of Americans do when so few even know what's possible is misplaced in the best possible read of it.
Perhaps you're correct, but we're getting into conjecture at this point. The single family home on a quarter acre plot is ingrained into the physche of Americans at birth. It's the American dream. Cultural memes like that don't die without a herculean amount of effort. And when this dream is so well built into our urban design, uniformity across the country, the likelihood of it really changing is fairly small. Online spaces are really the first time I've seen anything different from the mainstream viewpoint here--never heard anything like this offline. Even San Francisco won’t upzone. If that isn’t a clear indication of preference, I don’t know what is.
The demand for car-free neighbourhoods is also obvious if you look at what exists, and how exorbitant the prices are due to the high demand and low offer.
Definitely, we need more of these neighborhoods to satisfy demand. Again, I live in one, and I experience the price increases first hand. I just don't agree with the position folks take of changing existing neighborhoods into "urban, walkable" ones when the residents don't want that. There is a lot of space to try building these communities, especially since many people (even not in tech!) don't need to go to downtown offices anymore.
Streetcar suburbs are pretty awesome, because they allow single family home-style living while maintaining walkability. But density advocates want to see those neighborhoods built up into apartments and townhomes. That's tough for residents to swallow, since they have heavily invested in making their neighborhood the exact low-ish density but walkable, manicured living space they want to be in. And it's part of the appeal of unwalkable / HOA subdivisions, because such up zone conversions are difficult to impossible, or make little financial sense.
Vegetation, old architecture, etc. takes a long time to grow and "settle in". Destruction of backyards and old homes for large buildings that don't fit in with anything else in the neighborhood is not a fun time for existing residents. I don't really care about the property value (well, I would care if my neighborhood completely changed by a forced zoning change and I needed to move). It's about keeping the small town neighborhood vibes I chose to move here for.
This isn't a fucking gotcha, it's a show of faith and compassion.
It certainly comes across that way, from the tone of your comments.
Not just zoning laws in your suburbia, zoning laws in the city itself.
Yeah, I live in one of those single family walkable city neighborhoods. It’s a nice low density neighborhood. We don’t want it changed, but density advocates that don’t live here have “selected” us for an up-zone campaign. This isn’t a bad faith argument at all… This seems to be the serious lapse in understanding between pro density and pro single family zoning folks.
I’m super glad you were able to help someone move to a walkable area as well! I’m very happy someone discovered they wanted such a lifestyle over sprawl. That said, the vast majority in NA still prefer SF zoning and sprawl. I’m not convinced that will ever change unless sprawl becomes unimaginably expensive.
Your comment history is fascinating.
Can we refrain from the reddit-esque creepy "gotcha" of digging through post history of another user instead of addressing the argument at hand?
You posted yourself about the ridiculous subsidies that US suburbia gets so you clearly understand that the way Americans live in the suburbs is completely out of touch with how much it really costs
Yep.
and very few people if any would actually choose suburbia if they had to bear those costs.
I don't agree. It's arguable we do already bear much of these costs, as a lot of infrastructure is paid for through development fees (higher housing prices) or through federal & state grants (which we all pay for). I understand cities subsidize suburban areas to some extent, but that's largely from business tax that, again, we all pay for in higher prices.
Americans are “choosing this”
Look at the pandemic trends, that haven't really reversed since. People left cities and suburban / rural property values shot up compared to big city real estate.
oning laws are preventing better alternatives from being created
No, they're keeping nice neighborhoods nice low density neighborhoods. Like the inhabitants of those neighborhoods want them to be.
Whenever I have Americans over visiting Brussels
Something tells me "Americans who want to visit Brussels" has a strong pro-density sampling bias. You're also seeing the initial reaction and not the long term reaction.
His mind was blown
But would he really live there, or was he just surprised by the different infrastructure?
For clarity, I live right in the middle in one of the most walkable places in the US. In the past, I’ve lived in suburban and rural areas. I understand the pro's of walkability, but I also understand suburbanites and rural folks don't want those pros because of the cons that come with them.
It’s good thing we moved from these old urban walkable designs to a car centric lifestyle, which the vast majority of Americans enjoy. The tradeoff of owning a single family home with a good plot of land is well worth the loss in walkability.
This isn’t sarcasm.
Edit: I understand HN really doesn’t like pro car and pro sprawl viewpoints, but downvotes don’t feel well placed.