postflopclarity

you have described my experience very accurately

"only" a 7% increase in deaths

I think one of the last straws for me before I quit trying to help is when I "lost" some disputed edit (and the page was subsequently locked) because the original author provided an external citation for their claim.

The problem was, if you actually go read the content being cited, it did not at all conclude what the page author was asserting it did. In fact, it concluded the opposite. So the citation was "real" but the way it was being used with the implication that it supported the author's position was pure misinformation.

I tried to point this out and petitioned to unlock the page, but I was told that "consensus has been reached, and edit warring will not be tolerated" ...

it was in the computational social choice sphere which attracts a lot of amateurs interested in electoral reform and "voting theory" (which of course is not the typical term used for the field but is popular among these amateurs).

these contributors tend to have some kind of unrelated engineering / technical background, though never in econ or social choice itself, are often retired with lots of free time, and _always_ have incredibly stubborn and strong opinions. the demographic matches the [trisector](https://www.ufv.ca/media/faculty/gregschlitt/information/Wha...) very closely

if you look around on these pages in social choice and voting algorithms you will find plenty of inaccuracies, vague assertions about strategic manipulability, misunderstanding of the formalization of certain electoral axioms, and other misinformation.

I am confident that my edits were high quality and improved the mathematical accuracy and clarity of the page.

unfortunately I was editing under my real name and I'd rather not dox myself so I can't link to the reverts. but the general area was in social choice / computational democracy. so if you scroll around the edit history of some of those pages maybe you'll get the picture?

indeed. the field I was trying to improve tend to attract a lot of cranks and trisectors. the topics are not "contentious" in the typical political sense but the pages are closely guarded by very stubborn and uninformed retiree flatearther types.

trying to contribute to wikipedia was the most miserable experience in a "collaborative" process I've ever had in my life.

Like arguing with cranks at a town hall meeting, ignorant high school group project classmates, and bureaucracy-obsessed nonprofit initiative zealots all wrapped into one.

in the area I was trying to contribute (a math subdomain) to there is sooooo much technical misinformation. but if you don't have an intimate knowledge of all the details of the editing bylaws, and seemingly infinite time to be able to litigate your case, it's almost impossible to get any of these edits through when the original page author is sufficiently motivated to prevent them.

> In that particular sense I think NYC is the clear best city in the country,

yes. if you don't like cities, you won't like NYC. but as far as "city" goes, NYC is the clear best and I don't think it's particularly close.

NYC is certainly the best city in the US.

if only there were a fungible way to measure which land is "desirable" or not, and then allow people to build there instead of making it illegal.

> it is not the definite answer for the housing issues.

it kind of is.

> Anyone thinking there's a simple solution to this problem hasn't spent enough time with the problem.

I've spent a lot of time with the problem. and there is a simple solution: relax zoning restrictions and various lot requirements to allow private developers to build more housing. the market incentives are already there, they're just blocked by NIMBY's and stupid city councils, etc.

that costs a $200 monthly subscription to access, the profits going directly to grifter's pockets.

for this kind of question, 20 years is not enough data. one would need a much longer study period to be able to reach any more compelling conclusions

I would pull a wild number out of my ass and estimate that all the "not very expensive endeavors" with approximately similar scope / usefulness to these current trackers add up to, maybe $20B in the budget? which is a microscopic rounding error compared to the amount of money that goes to bribes, fraud, and grift in the DoD budget.

because it is useful information for the public benefit, and not very expensive.

yes. adoption is slow, but steadily increasing. for certain tasks it's the best tool and each release just gets better.

except that they changed the index rules to OVERweight them because of their small float.

> We're going to start to seize companies now?

already started by the current administration?

Not sure if they've pivoted since, but when I interviewed here a few years ago these folk used ABM.

https://www.gauntlet.xyz/

Don't be a ridiculous socialist, clearly 50% is too much. The true capitalists believe that the USG should only own

* 10% of Intel

* 15% vig of Nvidia chip sales to China

* largest shareholder in several materials and mining companies

* option for 8% of Westinghouse

* "Golden Share" of U.S. Steel

/s

.. yes? this is studied.

studies typically conclude that immigrant populations do contribute to housing demand (duh), but the labor supply they bring to services market (e.g. childcare, retail) lowers the cost of those services by a more-than-commensurate amount. so the total cost of living goes down for "natives."

when you tax things you get less of it.

when you tax supply, you get less supply

many of these second homes are currently on the rental market. if there is less supply of these coming into the rental market, rent prices rise.

I don't know why everybody's brains are so broken when it comes to housing policy.

let's say you own an uninhabitable 2 family home in Brooklyn that was built in 1910 but would require serious renovation to be able to rent it out (not at all a strawman; this is incredibly common). now imagine your incentives as the property owner:

* without the pied-a-terre tax: some risk & upfront cost to renovate, but future cash flows from rental income make this incentivized

* with the tax: same risk & upfront cost, but now the future cash flows are decreased by the amount of the tax (since the assessed value will have increased)

anywhere that difference tips the scales from "renovating" to "not renovating," there is one fewer home on the market.

I also don't expect it to have a significant effect. but any effect it does have will be in the direction of less supply.

> I'll be interested to see if it helps create some liquidity in the housing market

lol. why would it? if you tax something, you get less of it.

there is not even close to any kind of shortage of demand for housing in NYC. there is an enormous shortage of supply; it is in fact _illegal_ in most places to build more supply.

that fund will only be used for brownshirts and bribes

glad to see they're prioritizing only the most prolific and dangerous criminals in the nation

correct. and the comment I replied to is about allowing voting for non-resident property owners when the ownership IS held by a natural person.

that's a different legal question than the one here.

depends on the workload. many are elegant and fast. some require a bit of clunkiness to wring out the last drops of performance