mattmcknight

"Mom-and-pop investors, or those who own between 1 and 5 homes, account for 85% of all investor-owned residential properties, while those with between 6 and 10 properties account for another 5%

Institutional investors that own 1,000 or more homes account for only about 2.2% of all investor-owned homes, the firm said.

And that number could get smaller, amid signs that large institutional investors are scaling back home purchases.

Out of a group of eight of the biggest companies that own and lease single-family houses, including Invitation Homes and American Homes 4 Rent, six sold more homes in the second quarter than they bought, according to data from Parcl Labs."

I would pay for a reserved spot to store my bag. Now that most US airlines are charging ordinary customers for checked luggage, there is insufficient overhead bin space on almost every flight. This has resulted in a secondary effect of a great rush to be the first one onboard, to be able to claim the limited overhead space without having to check your bag. This means I end up spending more time crammed into a tiny seat. If they let me reserve the spot above my seat, I'd be willing to spend the $25. However, if they force you to pay for it, how do they guarantee the space will be open?

the one thing about hierarchies that keeps them alive for me is that I am forced to assign one when I save a file, and they already exist. Sure, you could have a dumping ground like a "downloads" folder, but that's temporary or expendable.

It's probably easier to just through everything into a clustering algorithm and autotag than going back and tagging tens of thousands of files.

I think he's missing a ton from these books, and that it is a form of entertainment. Should I be listening to something else on a long commute? Even if these are anecdotal, you can start to recognize patterns. I run into situations where I've been able to leverage how someone else got out of this jam in a "business" book I read.

This is my thought exactly, if what they say is true: "It was always a financial decision,” Suppon said. “We wanted to be able to offset our energy costs, produce our own energy and only pay distribution [fees] back to the grid.” Then they should be able to finance it. If it takes a grant to break even, then the financial decision is about getting grant money, not solar.

Yeah, I'm never working with Elastic again. I used Lucene first, then Solr, then a custom scaled version, so I never really needed elasticsearch until using AWS. We did have one project on AWS using elastic, but happily moved to opensearch. Seems fine.

But why waste time getting the grade if you could pass the final today?

I'm getting a little tired of so many versions of 2.5. Whatever happened to 2.5.0, 2.5.1, et cetera?

I am not sure they had to give up, but my initial experiences with Edge weren't great. There are some interesting claims of bad behavior on Google's part, but I wasn't only seeing problems on Google properties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18697824

It's bizarre to suggest this. They don't need Google's money to compete in browser development. The hard part is competing with a free product. If someone comes up with another way to offer the browser for free, or offer features that make someone want to pay, they can compete. Chromium is already open source. Moving Chrome out of Google does nothing that benefits anyone.

> Inherently it seems like it's impossible to do both

but that is the value of a marketplace, aligning buyers and sellers via the price mechanism

Probably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STU-III

In terms of LLM code generation as well, the well structured nature of a Rails application, where there is a place for everything, a structure for tests to be added, really helps from the perspective of getting a comprehensible application out of it that is easy to modify. In addition to the existence of well tested component for most normal web application tasks, maybe it helps that a lot of Rails has already been based on old-fashioned code generation for 20 years.

By giving these things to random people, we don't do a very good job of evaluating their effects. If something works on 10% of the population, randomly selecting participants in an experiment will never give a significant result. If something is generally safe, it seems better to experiment on yourself.

The problem this solves is that some things work on some people. Neurotransmitters are blunt instruments that do many things- and are subject to adaptation effects where you get an effect for a while then the system adjusts to the new baseline. Maybe someone out there has a deficiency and adding more helps them for a bit, other people don't have a deficiency and get no results. Other people have a deficiency, something works for a little bit, then the brain adjusts to the new levels and the effect slowly disappears.

Until we can measure the level of the physiological effect we are targeting, the n=1 experiment seems like the only real way to see what group you fall into.

I do have memories of a nightmare from age 4-5, but it was a recurring nightmare.

I just order them myself every year at LabCorp. https://www.ondemand.labcorp.com/products

I definitely prefer doing the testing myself instead of begging the doctor to order things.

About the only time I go to doctors is to beg for antibiotics- which they often refuse to give me. They say, "oh, it's probably a virus." Okay, but all of the virus tests I can find came back negative. I have a CBC showing elevated WBC. Coughing up yellow-green slime. Can you order a sputum culture for me? "no, come back if you are still sick after 10 days". Great, $200 and 30 minutes in the waiting room getting exposed to other sickos for nothing, miss another week of work. The gatekeeping of medical care infuriates me. I have plenty of money, let me use it to get better faster.

Shoup did point out that we often don't charge enough for parking, which impedes the construction of things like parking lots and garages, because the free space is distorting the market. However, blindly advocating for less parking is not always the right answer either. There is often some sense in requiring parking to be built in cases where people want to free ride on parking created by others.

uBlock counter got up to 26 before I was done skimming the article.

Acela does have the quiet car.

Many more people do sleep on planes than busses.

Yes, but it means less than something like UserGroup. I hear you on {} though, I'm currently looking at "e: ".

Are you? What would an option for a hash set of userids? I just don't find that "types" magically solve problems of cognitive load.

Types? "Option<HashSet<UserId>>" means almost nothing to me. A well defined domain model should indicate what that structure represents.

So if you have a developer who writes no code and closes no tickets, who essentially does nothing except come to meetings, they are just as productive as a developer who writes some code and closes some tickets? Obviously there is a difference there. Negative code is still doing something as well. Back in the 90s we used Personal Software Process from the SEI, and we measured lines added, deleted, and changed. (as well as defects removed and added)

It becomes clear that simple quantity of code and tickets is not enough- but it's also not nothing. Part of what is missing is quality and assessments of task complexity. Part of what is missing is the other parts of the jobs, like design and code reviews.

I don't think it's hopeless, and can at least be used to look into why some people don't seem to make much at all.

Not just at runtime.

Ruby has types.

> I invite anyone making that claim to find me an "advanced amateur" (as the article says of the LLM's level) chess player who ever makes an illegal move.

I would say the analogy is more like someone saying chess moves aloud. So, just as we all misspeak or misspell things from time to time, the model output will have an error rate.

It's weird because it is not a black box at the lowest level, we can see exactly what all of the weights are doing. It's just too complex for us to understand it.

What is difficult is finding some intermediate pattern in between there which we can label with an abstraction that is compatible with human understanding. It may not exist. For example, it may be more like how our brain works to produce language than it is like a logical rule based system. We occasionally say the wrong word, skip a word, spell things wrong...violate the rules of grammar.

The inputs and outputs of the model are human language, so at least there we know the system as a black box can be characterized, if not understood.

> Aggressively maintaining a decent follow list no longer helps.

> I'm so incredibly tired of algorithmic timelines.

Then why not just use your following lists? I have a main list of people I follow, mostly people I know, then a bunch of topical lists for various topics, from silly stuff to NLP.

That's exactly what Threads seemed like when I dipped in, so many complaints about non-Meta tech companies.

> "Hiring processes should focus on problem-solving, collaboration, and growth"

How is a coding challenge not problem solving?

Collaboration can be part of coding challenges.

How in the heck do you plan to measure growth in a hiring process?