Not necessarily. If you add density to an existing lot, your land increases in value, and since it’s likely the majority of the value of your property, your property probably goes up in value. Then, the increased supply decreases the cost of shelter.
Thanks, this is a great explanation. It seems like these "nm" indicators are much like measuring a car's power in "horsepower". It is certainly measuring something real but its connection to actual horses has long since atrophied.
I don't think so. There has to be a plausible survivor for survivorship bias. Living forever is advantageous to being a member of a survival cohort, and yet survivorship bias hasn't discovered any immortal people. Is there a plausible reason for things to exist that would explain why existence survived as an outcome?
7. Need to understand that drunk person staggering along the roadside has been repeatedly slipping off the sidewalk and there's a non-zero chance they trip and fall right in front of you.
It is! But their architecture should enable them to hit a much lower price point. Maybe it's just charging what the market will bear? If this is what they need to charge to be profitable, though, that indicates the satellite-to-satellite approach doesn't scale well, or they've been losing money.
Compared to what their architecture should enable. Sure, it's more satellites consumed per request but there aren't _that_ many satellites between some random point in the Pacific and the nearest base station. Certainly seems like it's not scaling that well if the price jumps from ~$120 to $5000.
$5000 a month? That's pretty embarrassing, isn't it? That indicates they aren't doing satellite-to-satellite and are using some kind of specialized hardware to simply send the signal to coastal satellites from farther away.
Co-pilot is great when you have a repetitive programming task to perform. e.g. if you are nesting module imports through several layers of python init. Co-pilot is great at tab-completing `from myproject.some_module.nested_module.actual_module import Foo as Foo` and similar tasks.
> My personal experience is that consciousness, like free will, is a useful illusion.
This is easily contradicted. Let's say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of computation but causality only flows one way: you "choose" to do something because your brain chose to do it and your consciousness tricked itself into thinking it was doing the choosing.
If that were the case, then the brain wouldn't be aware of consciousness. The illusion falls apart due to the fact that we are discussing consciousness right now. Consciousness must have at least some ability to communicate back to the brain.
And since evolution hates inefficiency, that means it must have a purpose.
Yes, it's still valuable to be able to move a heavily armored computer onto the battlefield, even if you need to be more cautious about exposing it to direct fire now.
The other problem is the public's unreasonable expectations about safety. Given the amount of radiation already emitted into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, a nuclear power plant meltdown cannot be considered to be a remarkable addition to that balance.
So it's more like me announcing that, if everyone in line lets me cut to the front, I will burn a $100 bill and enrich them all slightly through deflation. I wonder if any transactions ever just never get confirmed because they never pay enough gas fee to not be pre-empted?
I don't really understand how a "$25 NFT with a $3300 transaction fee" can exist. Isn't that a $3325 NFT? The purchaser was willing to pay that.
It seems like the main difference is that the seller didn't receive what the purchaser was willing to pay, creating a rather unique dead-weight loss. Wouldn't it be better if the seller received the additional $3300?
Yes, there would be a gradient somewhere. If that law extended to the point where you couldn't get utility water without a background check, some judge would find cause to throw it out mainly because of how silly it was. But on the other hand the water content of even a mildly alcoholic beverage doesn't make showing ID an unreasonable search. There are lots of ways the government can twist your arm into a "search" through this opt-in approach.
You are confused. You can decline to have your papers searched by declining to participate in the activity. Therefore, no matter how unfair, it is not forcible. If the government passed a law forbidding the sale of water to people who did not consent to a search, that would also be lawful. The Constitution does not forbid bad laws.
Because it's not a search - you're consenting to it as part of something you are doing that is not a right (getting a mortgage, getting a home). The moment the scenario shifts from "this is done to you" to "this is a prerequisite to a thing you are doing" then you have basically no rights.
This is what I think too, and I think it's going to lead to an unnecessary recession. Eventually, hitting the economy on the head with a large enough brick will drive demand down enough that even supply chain issues won't contribute to inflation, but that's an economy with such stagnant demand that it's definitely a recessed one.
This is true, although I would prefer to still test everyone for plausibly important things to feed data analysts who might eventually discover something useful.