_vertigo

I think you should spend some time reflecting on this take and whether it makes sense for a (presumably competent) adult to have posted it.

I thought it was fun to click on all of the little squares. I like the interactivity.

That seems to be contradicted by the article

Not if you want to use the sun’s energy for power

While not contending directly for the same stock, homeowners are very interested in matters that influence rental prices, albeit in less direct way, as you say. Try proposing to build affordable housing in a neighborhood and you’ll find yourself drowning in homeowners coming out of the woodwork complaining that “we want more affordable housing, but this project just isn’t right for our neighborhood.”

I think we’re on the same page. As I wrote in my comment, rents and home prices cannot diverge >for long<, and you write that they can diverge >to some extent<. I think we are saying the same thing, just emphasizing different aspects of the same statement.

> Contrary to your assertion, landlords are not primarily focused on the appreciation of the market value of their assets exceeding inflation but instead on achieving a reliable income stream from rents. This cash flow can be sustainably profitable under stable rents, so the structural conundrum you propose doesn’t exist in the real world.

Rare is the landlord who continually settles for a stable rent when increasing it is feasible.

As home prices rise, would-be buyers are forced out of the market and have to contend with existing renters, increasing demand for rental housing, which in turn causes rents to increase. Taxes on rental properties increase, also serving to increase rent.

Your home has appreciated because you either live in an area that has gone through a major growth period (it has improved relative to other areas) or because other owners around you have voted to keep the value of their property increasing and your property has appreciated along with theirs as a result.

Probably both.

“Deprogramming” would help with the latter cause of appreciation. It would allow policy makers to enact laws and regulations to keep housing costs stable without facing a mass revolt from homeowners who have basically all made a $100K-$nM bet on their house increasing in value much faster than inflation.

The problem with housing (in the States at least, can’t speak for other countries) is simple.

Renters want housing to remain affordable and to increase no faster than inflation.

Owners expect (and bank on) the value of their house increasing faster than inflation.

Both cannot be occur at the same time, at least not for long. As home prices increase, so too will rents. And if rent stays flat, the price of housing is forced to remain flat as well.

Housing cannot simultaneously be affordable if it is also supposed to increase in value endlessly. Someone has to lose.

To solve the housing crisis, Americans need to be deprogrammed out of this belief that owning a home is supposed to yield a return. It makes literally no sense to expect or feel entitled to a return just for owning property. Barring improvements the value of the home should depreciate slightly as the house gets older.

That’s not to say that home values should never go up anywhere. As a city improves compared to other areas and brings more jobs and better services, home prices there should reflect the increased value associated with living in an area that is better than other places. Home prices should not being going up everywhere at the same time, which is what Americans expect to happen —- that almost all property should appreciate in value on average.

I don't think asking for a sign up is unethical, at least not on the same magnitude as the actual Hippocratic Oath is concerned with. I'd envision the Hippocratic Oath for Software might have something to say about writing software for ICE or despotic regimes but not asking the user to sign up. One is unethical, the other is just annoying.

Mussolini made the trains run on time

Is that true? I've heard that the build quality for new houses in China is terrible.

Boudin got the most votes in the first round. He would have won in first past the post too.

Yeah, that’s kind of my point. They probably love to come into the office

No, probably not. They’re executives, they probably have offices in different buildings corresponding to their business area throughout Seattle. Like the AWS head doesn’t need to work from the same building as the head of Consumer.

But yeah, I’m not sure that they always meet in person when they meet. I have no idea about that. But I don’t think that the majority of their job function entails meeting each other, probably it entails running their division.

Honestly I would be surprised if the majority (all, really) of the S Team isn’t planning on coming in every day of the week

Framing privacy in this light is a surefire way to lose it.

> how many people here could go on television onto some talk program or news show with their real name and face and tell a child abuse victim that while their concerns may be valid they are wrong and they should shut up?

Well, putting aside the "shut up" part, I'd be happy to state publicly that under no (reasonable, peacetime) circumstances should the government be allowed to read my texts, emails, and documents.

Obviously there's a bunch of qualifiers to assign to that (if I'm under suspicion of something, OK, sure, maybe the government can get a warrant) that I'm not qualified to speak intelligently about, but that's the gist. Saying that the government should not be able to read your email or list to your phone calls is not an unpopular opinion, at least in the States, and it's also not one that requires you to be of an overly technical persuasion to have.

People support victims of child abuse and they also distrust the government and don't want it to have awesome powers of espionage it can wield against the entire populace at scale all of the time. Those positions might conflict with each other if you frame the conversation that way, but if you do frame it that way, I don't think it's a given that the child abuse argument is always going to win the debate.

While I sympathize with those who were laid off, being laid off doesn't give you license to pass off wild speculation as fact in a post like this.

Alternative take: high-tech food needs to be better if we want to people to start eating it

If that’s the case, all the more reason to be mad at Airbnb for removing legitimate reviews.

No, but at least in person it's easier and much more natural to facilitate mentorship opportunities for yourself if your boss isn't so good.

> all the buts will point back to a bad boss, who isn’t fixed by in-person presence.

This reasoning is faulty and nearly circular. "Remote work can't be bad, because if it were, it'd be the fault of the boss, and a bad boss is going to be bad regardless of whether or not you're remote."

That's a neat rhetorical trick for making almost any argument. You're sidestepping the fact that remote work makes mentorship harder and less likely to work. A good boss can make up for that, but not all bosses are good. Most are just average, and it's certainly not the case that managing a fully remote team is easier than managing a fully in-person one. Mentorship, knowledge transfer, and values transfer happen automatically more often than not in person, but they have to be intentionally fostered in a remote setting. That's harder for a manager to pull off. Remote work just makes this kind of stuff harder.

When I worked in person, I could seek out mentorship myself in a natural way by making connections on my own, at lunch for example. Now, I guess what you're saying is that it's my boss's responsibility to schedule those opportunities for me, and if he doesn't, he's a bad boss. Okay -- how does that help me? Should I leave my job if I can't find a way to improve it? What if the next job has the same problem?

Working remotely as a junior or intermediate engineer is basically stacking the deck against yourself. Sure, there are ways to make it work, but on average it works less well, and it's also more likely to just not work at all. Sweeping it under the rug by saying it's the boss's job to make it work does not absolve it of its problems.

What is the difference between deploying and releasing? Everywhere I’ve worked, those are the same thing. We deploy probably 10 to 30 times a workday. As for Friday deployments, I tend to avoid deploying big changes on Friday but medium and small are probably fine Friday unless it’s the very end of the day.

I think this advice really depends on your scaling needs. If you need to scale your services up, it’s a lot easier to do that if each service only does one thing.

It also depends on how much functionality you consider to be “one thing”.

I’ve heard this a lot, but is it actually true?

I work in Retail and I’m pretty sure this isn’t true. I don’t know what AWS charges Netflix but there is an internal rate card and I’m pretty sure it’s just based on what it costs to run the machines.

I can't name many more types of apples than "Fuji", "McIntosh", "Rome", "Red Delicious", "Gala", "Granny Smith", and "Honeycrisp", but I feel like Honeycrisp apples are too perfect - too sweet, too crisp, but somehow not as apple-y as other varieties.

If you only have one Honeycrisp after years of eating Fujis and Galas it will hit you like a ton of bricks with how good it is compared to what you've been eating. You might even wonder why you would bother to get anything else. But it's soo saccharine, so uniformly "good" that it gets old fast IMO. Hard to explain, but sometimes I'd rather have something that tastes more like a good old fashioned apple and less like apple juice in apple form.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think a fair number of people think CEOs and entrepreneurs are immoral for acting in a self-serving, self-enriching manner, and a fair number of people think employees are immoral doing so.

Offensive?

I think you're massively underselling how complex it is to run something at scale. It's not a matter of just making the database go fast. Just using the database as an example (even though there's way more to it than just the database), you can scale a database a bit by sharding or running it as a cluster or what-have-you, but you can only shard so wide before you run into other problems which are much harder to solve. Running at a massive scale requires rearchitecting almost everything that came before.

From Musk’s POV, a bunch of solid, well-rounded, and experienced engineers you trust might be enough to tell you “this guy is full of shit” when talking to new people.

Maybe it’s less about code quality and more about eng quality.