spaceflunky

lol

just a lot less (overt) slurs and slightly more intelligible formatting

Such a good point.

For all the pride that South Korea has around its successes, how good of a society can it be, if it is an abject failure when it comes to repopulation?

Won't this just devolve into a "live to die another day" situation? Most likley just a few days later?

I feel super skeptical about these "billionaire survival" compounds because they are going to require a lot of work for survival (read: hired hands). And where are these hands going to come from? If SHTF won't their pilots, drivers, security details, maids, cooks, gardeners, maintenance/mechanics crews, etc abandon them to tend to their own families? Or are these billionaires finding orphans who have no allegiance to anyone but the billionaires? Not to mention this is going to require some kind of "military style" command to prevent mutiny and ensure compliance under the threat of force. Sure, the billionaires can bury themselves in a comfortable (even luxury) bunker eating dehydrated rations for many many years, but I think I'd rather die that point. They can hide out on their yachts for about week before they run out of diesel and food, and then crew commits a mutiny.

It all seems like a really stupid expensive LARP or Howard Hughes style paranoia. IMO if SHTF for real those bunkers are worthless.

With a price locked in?

Well their kids could live in them

Unlikely. There's a very high likelihood the house will have to be sold, either to pay off debts of the deceased (or bereaved), or because the children already have their own lives going, or because they don't want to assume the tax burden, or simply because each child wants their share to do with as they please.

or sell it and buy a different house to live

This is what's going to happen. All of these property will be sold. A very small percentage will be assumed by the children because of the all issues mentioned above.

Unless the housing supply increases this will just be a temporary thing.

The housing supply will increase dramatically in the next decade, not by building but by attrition.

More than 55% of all homes in America are owned by Silent Gens or Boomers[0]. That figure includes non-SFHs, of SFHs I've read they own >70% of (lost my source unfortunately). They are going to start dying of en masse within the next decade. That means A LOT of SFH are going to hit the market, all around the same time.

The share of millenials and genzers who are financially fit to even purchase a home are going to be far less than the amount of people who are dying.

For the non-believers, it's all written in the demographics. Unless we import a shit load of migrants who can also afford expensive real estate, or we print money so that institutions can buy these properties, the prices are going to sink like crazy.

[0]https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/homeownership-rate-...

Can anyone ELI5 the significance of this?

Yeah, it's not super well executed by any means and its relegated to a very small section of the mall, but I still believe the idea is good and could be successful if nurtured correctly.

KidZania is next level tho. Absolutely insane

I too believe this is the answer.

In San Bruno, CA a portion of the mall there is dedicated to small experiences for children (a miniature play town, a bounce room, etc). I've taken my toddler there and it was pretty fun.

Pure commoditized retail isn't going to cut it anymore. I think another component is that the rent is going to have to be very cheap in order to lower the bar to entry and encourage rapid innovations in this space. If I were Simon (or a similar property group), I might dedicate a certain percentage of my mall spaces to "incubate" these new ideas by offer cheap or nearly free rent.

Strongly agree with Ghana. Seems like a reasonable way to stick up for yourself.

"players can make far more than that playing in leagues overseas"

THEN GO PLAY OVERSEAS!!!! Half of the people on HackerNews are immigrants to one country or another.

Why should we feel sympathy for this woman? People go overseas for better opportunities all the time. Why should I feel sympathy for her brining illegal drugs into Russia? She's can't follow the law there, so now America has to come break her out?

You need access to the software that runs those SOCs which is owned by Qualcomm. Qualcomm isn't just going to give the sourcecode of those SOCs for Google engineers to tinker around with it. It creates all kinds of crazy legal problems.

It's not just the main Android OS that needs to be patched, the chips have their own proprietary software too.

The problem is that after 3 years, most of those chips have gone EOL and QC wants to put their resources into developing new chips because that's where the revenue comes from (e.g. how they pay their employees). Meanwhile new security flaws keep getting discovered on EOL chips that provide zero new revenue.

So what do you want here? Do you want the break neck pace of innovation to continue which is ultimately very good for everyone? Or should we spend all of our time making sure your Apple IIc still has security patches for 2022? At some point you just have to move on and that's just the trade you make for all technology. You can't simultaneously benefit from this cycle and then bemoan it. If all we ever did was make security patches for your Commodore and AppleIIc you wouldn't have a Pixel3.

Never said knives were less dangerous than guns just that an assailant swinging a knife can do damage, but if your argument is that if get rid of guns we can get rid of mass killings, then may I direct your attention to the 86 people who were killed by a truck.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

Innocent bystanders can be stabbed in knife attacks. Can and does happen

I remember reading some version of the story where he figured out what companies were on the rise by going through peoples trash. Like he would make note of what people were actually buying so he had an inside track.

You'd be surprised how many Google employees have a warped view of the company or even that of what a business is suppose to do.

There are some people with the org that would genuinely debate you as to whether making a profit (any kind of profit) is a good or bad thing.

So I work for a FAANG company and I worked on a tech partnership with Disney. To Disney's credit, they are INCREDIBLY understanding about the need for all families to have a good day at the park. They spend a lot of money on R&D for finding ways to track how many rides people have been on and what is the appropriate amount of time in between rides, etc etc.

One the technologies they were developing was to have a system monitor everyone's experiences and if they found someone who's experience metrics were too low they could send a cast member out to find the family and give them a skip the line pass or meal voucher. They also knew what was the most common hour for kids to have meltdowns and strategically send out juice/snack vendor carts out around that time. This is what just what they shared with us, so god knows what else they know.

IIRC they said 6 rides was the ideal number for a family to say they got their money's worth.

Not reeeeally though. Because no new inventory is being created. Because amount of usable square footage actually decreases, you technically end up with less housing than you started with.

You start with a house that comfortably fit a family of 5, to 3 condos that can only house 1 person comfortably.

Agreed, I see this mostly as an expert-assist thing

Thats exactly what happened to the dental AI startup I mentioned. They started off with "we make dental care more efficient" essentially undermining the dentist, to "dentists, let us help you with your practice"

I would also add that there is going to be INCREDIBLE resistance to AI/ML applications. Both from menial AND skilled labor fronts.

I've been following a dental AI startup. They've pivoted a couple times and I suspect it's because the dentists who would use this: 1.) don't want to make themselves obsolete and 2.) don't want to give credence to a robot opinion in the room. (e.g. have the insurance companies fighting them because what the AI bot says goes against whatever the dentist is saying).

Another prime example is the legal industry. There is soooo much of the legal industry that can be automated. We've been saying that the legal industry will collapse for decades because of this. However, coincidentally the people who stand to be made obsolete are also the people that can legislate themselves from being obsolete.

AI/ML still feels like a nothingburger to me.

Yeah i get there are some applications in some niche tasks, but we're like in the 1970s of the AI/ML revolution if we compare it to the internet's timeline.

This sounds plausible, but as someone else said, has this ever been proven to be the case? What are some good examples?

The people who are landlords agree to the risk of owning a property and renting it out to someone. Why should I feel bad when the risk comes to fruition? Why should anyone?

Ok then. People who didn't take on the risk to buy a home in 2009 when homes were cheap should not complain that homes are too expensive now, therefore we should not have tax payer funded affordable housing. Those same people didn't take on the risk to go to school and get a better job. Why should I feel bad when someone wants the fruits of risk, but doesn't want to take on any of the risk?

WTF was the point of pay people unemployment and stimulus checks, if not to pay their bills/rent?

I can't believe we as society just laughed and robbed all the landlords. This is truly shameful.

Several of my grandparents spent way too long in ICU and hospice care and ultimately it wasn't worth it. I feel terrible about how their final days went, but other family members were adamant about 'throwing everything they could at it.'

But the family members making that choice weren't footing the bill and they didn't have to lay in bed all day, so why wouldn't they try? I also feel they had a gross misunderstanding of the capabilities of modern medicine.

In each case the doctor's asked, "do you want to give him/her a fighting chance?" Of course, no one wants to say 'no' to that question, because they don't really understand what's possible and don't understand what "winning" actually looks like.

You’re just infantilizing women by blaming every outcome on “society”. I fully believe women are capable of making their own decisions and there’s no “cabal of men” holding them back from unclogging toilets.

like plumbing or climbing telephone poles. People just won't accept that women can also do that.

You sure about that? Or is it that the majority of women don't see themselves unclogging toilets for a living? I have never seen it, but I would suspect list of female applications to plumbing or electrician school is very very short.

but now it feels like the government can basically commandeer your property at will.

This is one of the scariest outcomes of the eviction moratorium. It is basically solidified the fact that you own nothing and the government can take and do with "your" property as it pleases when it pleases.

you are just going to be left with large corporate landlords who are diversified enough that they can take the risk.

Again, so very true. Why do people think that big corporate landlords are going to be better than the small mom and pops they killed off? Soon everyone who rents will be paying to large kafkaesque monolith who makes you wait on the phone for 5 hours every time you have a problem.

The other companies are valued so low because their ability to innovate is so low.

Tesla is a vertically integrated company, while the others are horizontally integrated. The combined proprietary technology of Tesla is greater than the combined proprietary technology of all the big auto manufacturers. A lot of those companies just buy technology from some other vendor, so while it looks like they are competing with Tesla, they aren't really.

The incumbents just know how to build a car, Tesla not only learned how to build a car, they built self-driving technology to compete with Google (Waymo), the built their own chips to compete with Nvidia, they built their own batteries to compete with Panasonic, and they built their own manufacturing technologies to compete with hundreds of long term industrial companies. Not a single one of those companies could design a GPU to save their life. Let alone in the time and quality that Tesla built it.

You can't just look at the surface and go "Toyota and Tesla sell cars, therefore I can compare companies apples to apples"