bertmuir

Can you think of even 10 notable cases of startups being killed by fines? Let alone the 1,000+ you would need to identify to justify the claim.

I can't think of a single one. It barely registers as a risk.

Although I can think of several US startups that bankrupted themselves with fines for fraud etc....

You say "keep competing"... the hyper agile frontier labs and Google/MSFT are practically one and the same via circular financing arrangements. Competition on the frontier is kinda a farce, what matters is who comes out of the modern-day Darien scheme as a winner.

At worst Google just need to keep the lights on until the frontier labs file for bankruptcy under the weight of that >$1tn debt they've built up paying for FAANG's data centers. Then Google walks away from all of this with the the best remaining models, best R&D lab, and several hundred billion dollars in infrastructure on their balance sheet.

I'll take that wager! Before you look at any real statistics, how does $1000 sound?

Marketing didn't do this, as pointed out earlier, it's the ML academics and researchers coining these unscientific terms and explanations.

I'd expect it in social sciences - where functionalist explanation are often appropriate, but its easy to step over the margin into metaphor and personification. But not computer sciences - where it's obviously absurd. These professionals should know better.

Furthermore - there are more than enough novels that grip you immediately, to spend your whole life reading them and avoiding the rest.

"The rest" tend to come in two categories. Books I lack some experience for to be gripped by - which I may come back to in future. And bad books - which I will not. YOLO.

The term is an anthropomorphised pseudoexplanation for what it actually refers to. It's akin to calling genetic mutation "the forces of evolution", or price negotiation "the invisible hand of the market".

We do that sort of thing when we don't know what the thing we're trying to describe is and have nothing better - a contemporary example of an appropriate use of this would be "dark matter". But we do know what this is. It's "instruction steps". Not a series of thoughts!

Can we please aim higher than Victorian-era allegory and metaphors. If we don't, we'll keep getting people saying stuff like "GPT-6 is better at hiding its thoughts".

Whether carrying cost is higher or lower depends on the taxation LVT is substituting and the counterfactual utilisation of the land. In practice it is usually lower in rural and suburban and highly developed urban areas and (where substituted property taxes are higher or there are more properties to tax per unit of land), and higher in underdeveloped urban areas (with fewer properties to tax per unit of land).

This is, of course, the point. The carrying costs properly incentivise appropriate land use and development, and the land value is reduced, freeing up the capital locked into ownership (i.e. thin air) for productive use.

The better developed land also ends up with more properties per unit of land, so the carrying cost of property decreases universally.

You may be confusing LVT with property transfer tax? LVT is a tax on ownership of land - driving down land value, not up.

In practice it disincentivises investment in land (rent-seeking and speculative land hoarding) while incentivising land development. In cities this manifests as more, cheaper, homes, and lower rents, and is highly progressive.

I say in practice because we have over a century of explicit and implicit LVT implementations in the real world to demonstrate this. Most implementations of LVT have gone down as described. Estonia is a pretty fantastic case study - 90% of property is owner-occupier! And you might find this new study of implicit LVT in the US interesting - LVT correlates with higher earnings and demographic diversity: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004727272...

The challenges for LVT are really about how to transition the tax in for areas that are occupied, but severely underdeveloped. If a low-density inner-city area ought to be high-density, the owners are being charged accordingly. Long term, it stimulates development and the new housing surplus (splitting the tax burden of LVT across a much greater number of owners) balances things out. But that's no consolation to the people being told they have to pay tax on their backyard as if it's already a block of flats.