tech_ken

There's no better option on the table? Desperate people have low labor elasticity, kind of definitionally.

Right they require a brokerage license instead because it's a different industry. Not sure what your comment is trying to say here.

It's not goodwill though, I'm paying for public services like the fire department through my taxes. I like them to be owned by the government instead of a private entity because I don't want to pay the capitalist rent for borrowing their money; if we pool our resources we can cut out the middle-man and just fund it ourselves. Very typical human living arrangement I believe.

A robust and aggressive consumer protections bureau is a handy way for me to feel secure while doing basic economic operations, without having to handle a ton of one-off research on my own. For example I'm strongly in favor of medical licensure, it seems nuts to me to say like "if an adult consented to a surgery who's the state to quibble over whether the surgical tools were properly sterilized". Similarly gambling licenses seem like a reasonable regulation to ensure honest behavior in an industry with many avenues for corruption and double-dealing (or at least provide legal avenues for recompense in cases where the house deviates from the guidelines required by their licensure).

> It's trendy to blame cars for this but the problem is fundamentally zoning

> you thereby need a car to leave the vicinity in order to get anywhere you can.

I hear your point but I think your causal model is misguided. It's two different things augmenting each other, not "one is a more primal cause than the other" (in my opinion, anyways). Like yes road diets in the suburbs won't 'solve' the problem by themselves, but the impact of the zoning changes you're pointing to may also have the impact of reducing car dependency in the area (although not guaranteed, I've seen USians drive even just half a mile). Cars collapse distance, and zoning policy eats up those gains greedily. SFH zoning spaces everything 10 miles apart, so all the residents buy cars because there's no alternatives. It's multiple threads reinforcing each other; I think if you dig into the ""trendy"" anti-car arguments you will find a lot of backing for mixed-used zoning policy as well because both types of changes are needed at once.

> its probably a broken line

Per her website (which is hosting the transcript of the interview here: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-...) seems that the cause is known and acknowledge to be construction

"""

...A few weeks ago, while Congress was in recess, I visited Morgan County, Georgia, where Meta is building a massive data center campus. They are clear cutting forests and began heavy construction, including explosive blasting, and families in the area are starting to see not only their water pressure decrease, to your point about water availability, but their appliances have all stopped working because it is decimating their water quality.

They now rely on bottled water to drink and prepare meals, and nearby residents' water bills are expected to increase by 33%. In fact, I have a jar right here. This is the current drinking water in Morgan County, Georgia, right after a data center was constructed, the Meta data center was constructed. ...

"""

If you assume that decision makers operate entirely in silo from their constituents then yes, that's how this works. Howver if you are operating in the normal mode of democracy where decision makers consult impacted parties through town halls, solicited feedback, subcommittees, etc etc then there are ample opportunities to obtain high-quality, low-latency signals. "Voting with your money" is (IM personal O) a scapegoat for government leaders to avoid doing their due-diligence (not to mention the massive power imbalance that results from people with lots of money 'voting' way more than people with less money).

One thing that really jumps out to me is the lack of a performance gap between the 90-day and 30-day resolution times. If 2-months of new information doesn't lead to materially improved forecast, then to me this seems to strongly reinforce the takeaway that these markets aren't really forecasting, so much as "the oracle is largely saying what other oracles already say, just updated faster." Am I misunderstanding the data here?

edit: I'm also going back to my bayesian theory days and would be super interested to see a deep dive into whether these markets are rationally updating their beliefs in time. My recollection is super vague here, but I recall something like non-transitive belief loops can lead to dutch-books (so like Johnny Punter things that Trump will win an election against Biden, Biden would win against Ross Perot, and Ross Perot would win against Trump). I'd like to know more about whether these kinds of issues are showing up in these markets?

> Gen Z home ownership is outpacing millenial home ownership at the same age. There's a lot of denial around this topic.

Yeah but aren't they putting down less/leveraging themselves deeper?

edit: also it seems like the millenial/genZ divide here is on the order of like 1-5%, whereas the gap between either of those generations and boomers/genX is more like 10%+. It's good that the trend hasn't gotten worse in recent history, but I think it's pretty inarguable that the housing market is much worse than it was 30 years ago.

> Sam says he presented Gemini with a few possible options to help his model stand out, and the chatbot selected one in particular: the “MAGA/conservative niche,” referring to it as a “cheat code.” Plus, it said, “the conservative audience (especially older men in the US) often has higher disposable income and is more loyal.

Reminds me of: https://maxread.substack.com/p/predictions-markets-and-the-s...

> But zoom out and what you had was just an enormous machine converting human ambition into noise

Calling it “ambition” is generous IMO. Passive income chasers always give “desperation” more than “ambition”. I also feel a bit weird about mourning “a diverted generation of entrepreneurs”, personally I feel like this generational obsession with entrepreneurship almost forcibly led to the dropshipping scams we see today. In a world where everyone is constantly trying to get some side project off the ground of course some folks are going to pursue the shortcut version of that.

> Don’t fall for FOMO marketing or feel anxious. Keep it simple. Obsidian should help you work on other things.

Great advice, I tried to get into Obsidian a few weeks ago and could immediately feel myself getting pulled into the "Workflow Optimization Spiral". I love nothing more than fruitlessly tooling with workflow stuff, in place of actually, you know, working. I kind of just decided to set it aside, rather than parse through exactly which parts would be actually helpful for stuff I needed that day. Really appreciate this blog post to help me revisit the app from a more practical starting place.

Regardless of the cosmological framing of the practice, people throughout history have devoted substantial effort to mapping the dynamics of probabilistic objects. For example, Sikidy is a randomized tool used for 'fortune telling' by some indigenous groups in Madagascar, where a 'random seed state' (using modern terminology) is used to deterministically generate a larger final state which provides the reading (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikidy). Practitioners of Sikidy really care about understanding the dynamics of the system, for example they implemented some algorithmic checks which can be applied to the final state to confirm that it was generated properly.

I'm not saying that this guarantees that early native Americans derived the law of large numbers or whatever, but I don't think it's sound reasoning to assume that people wouldn't study the mathematical behavior of a random system just because it's "the hand of God".

> Statistics is a very young invention. As far as we know, it didn't exist in meaningful form anywhere on Earth until the 1600s. (However, if it existed in the Americas earlier than that, that would explain why it suddenly popped up in Europe in the 1600s...)

> It's possible different conceptualisations of probability existed elsewhere.

Rudimentary sampling theory 100% predates 17th century Europe: https://ckraju.net/wordpress_F/?p=55

> When I was working on something I already understood deeply, AI was excellent. I could review its output instantly, catch mistakes before they landed and move at a pace I’d never have managed alone.

This precisely captures my experience with AI tools. When I understand the domain very deeply, AI feels like magic. I can tell it exactly how I want something implemented and it just appears in 30 seconds. When I don't understand something very well, however, I get easily misled by bogus design choices that I've delegated to the AI. It's so easy for me to spend 4 hours drafting some prototype in an almost dreamlike state of productive bliss, only for it to crash apart when I discover some fundamental bug in the thing I've vibecoded.

Another bingo square for that 'AI is gambling' post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47428541)

Yes in my (somewhat tinfoil) opinion the point is to have an emotional impact on the workforce overall (or at least, one of the points is). Tech workers had a really good 20 years in the US, and kind of forgot that they were ultimately still wage workers. I think the culture circa 2018 took for granted a basic level of respect and cooperation from upper executives, and were beginning to exercise their power to achieve political goals, which was annoying to the tech ownership class. I think one of the major strategic turns of last 4ish years is the usage of precarity and high turnover to corrode worker solidarity in fields which used to be ironclad and respectable white-collar work. By simultaneously narrowing the hiring window ('junior devs are replaceable with AI') and also expanding the opportunities to be culled ('we are axing this division to cover our moonshot outlays') capital cultivates a desperate and compliant workforce. Bottom-up culture is woke, in the 2020's the folks in power want top-down directives that are followed unquestioningly; similar approach to how the executive branch was brought to heel by DOGE.

Can't speak for everyone here, but I (as a US citizen) am way less bothered by sports gambling specifically than I am by generalized Kalshi-type gambling being abused by powerful insiders in the federal government (or other institutions). Like yeah I don't think it's great that we've enabled yet another route for young men to completely ruin their lives, but civil liberties, personal responsibility, etc. etc. etc.

What really is scaring me is how transparently the current US executive branch has been basically running a Black Sox scam for the last year or so. This is not something that I think is really happening with eg. Ladbrokes. Seems more like an even more insidious form of insider trading which is already disgustingly prevalent across the whole US political system; except now it's even less traceable, and even easier to exploit for things like military actions.

edit: Like is this kind of stuff already prevalent in places where gambling is legal? https://readwrite.com/threats-israeli-reporter-polymarket/

> You're always going to have some sort of insider leaks, and quite frankly I don't care if they make money off of it in a betting app

Absolutely garbage take, to be quite honest with you. War profiteering is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, and the last thing we need in this world is more opportunities for it. Regardless of whether the punters getting screwed consented to gambling or not, the problem is the perverse incentives it creates at the highest echelons of power. Abusing access to military intel for profit is foul behavior that will only degrade the quality of our governance and foreign policy, not to mention the literal lives that will be lost as a result.

> Paradigm shifts happen because the new paradigm explains the unexplained and importantly also covers the old model

Empirically it seems that paradigm shifts are more driven by deaths and retirement rather than improved fit to the data. Moreover the way that you reconcile old data with the new model can be contestable; it's not like everyone all at once says "oh this new model is clearly a strict superset of the previous one, time to adopt it". With all that said I think one could argue that this stuff is basically noise and that the process still 'trends toward progress' (and I'd agree). But I would say that the scale of noise can also be quite large relative to things a human might experience in their life. I was sort of imagining social-disruption (like a dark-age type regression) as the 'backwards paradigm shift'.

> but there's likely not going to be major "relativity" moments from here on out

I cannot understand how anyone treat this as something that can be objectively concluded; by definition these kinds of radical paradigm shifts are basically unforeseeable up until they happen. I called it the "End of Science" to draw a parallel to "End of History"-type thinking because both (IMO) take this view of "there will be no more revolutions, only incremental adjustments on an unshakeable core into infinity", which I feel is personally a 'vibes based' assessment of things. It's not even that I disagree with it so much as I feel like the statement is basically (and will always be) a pure guess, one which many people have made and been wrong about in the past.

What use does the God of Math have for satellites and the like?

I don't think paradigm shifts have to be 'better' in some march-toward-progress sense, they can be lateral or even regressive in that way and still lead to longer-horizon improvements.

I think also what's practically applicable changes constantly. Perhaps we're truly at the End of Science, but empirically we've been wrong every other time we've said that. My money is that there's more race to run.

My hot take is that mathematical and scientific 'soundness' is ultimately more of an aesthetic preference than an objective quality of reality. Good science makes sense to humans, and 'what makes sense' is ultimately what fits satisfyingly in your brain. There's nothing inherently wrong with an enormous epicycle model of reality from the perspective of the God of Math; so long as your formal system is consistent and expressive enough to represent everything then meh, it's a model. But the model that humans want to elevate to canonical status has far stricter requirements, and ultimately it's the one which the majority of sufficiently credentialed tastemakers decide is 'best'. Parsimony works well in physics where you have closed form expressions for all your stuff, but the biology cases are so much messier because it turns out that sometimes reality isn't parsimonious. All this to say that good science is a matter of taste, and while AI can gist the broad strokes of taste I've yet to see it take on the role of genuine tastemaker.

I think you would need to work very hard to prove that the topology you are describing is well-formed enough for this analogy to make sense. For one: "cognitive difficulty" is not really a crisply defined quantity such that expressing it as a function of some input vector makes obvious sense (to me anyways). What's the cognitive difficulty of deciding what to have for dinner? What's the cognitive difficulty of making my 5 year plan? What's the cognitive difficulty of imagining a nice gift to get my wife for her birthday? There are so many things humans do which are heavily 'contingent' (in the sense of having sensitivity to the local culture, history, personal experience, etc) that the idea of being able to assign everything a single, decidable scalar to represent 'difficulty' seems like an extremely tall order to me. And that's setting aside whether the ambient vector space of 'human capabilities' is even really a sensible construct (a proposition that I also doubt quite heavily).

All this to say that describing what's happening as a 'rising tide' seems misleading to me. Techno-sociological development is super messy already, let's not make it more complex by pinning ourselves to inaccurate and potentially misleading analogies. The introduction of the car did not 'push humans higher onto a set of capability peaks', it implied a total reorganization of behavior and technologies (highways, commuting, and suburban sprawl); using the terms of your analogy humans built new landmasses on top of the water.

My read is that it's a mix of tech firms having overhired a lot during the ZIRP+COVID era, as well as executives having a pretty short horizon for risk if the potential bonus is large enough.

> I never quite understood why AI and LLMs are marketed the way they are, or why the powers that be behind its massive push seem so keen on selling it as a wholesale replacement for human careers

Because labor is the largest line item in almost every software company on Earth. Executives' primary KPI is their market cap, so convincing investors that your profit/expense ratio is going to 2x in 6 months when you finally get full LLM adoption is an excellent way to juice your performance metrics, and thereby your bonus (mutatis mutandis for various finacial setups).

That's exactly the point of the essay though. The way that you're implicitly modeling labor and collaboration is linear and parallelizable, but reality is messier than that:

> The most important thing to know about labor substitution...is this: labor substitution is about comparative advantage, not absolute advantage. The question isn’t whether AI can do specific tasks that humans do. It’s whether the aggregate output of humans working with AI is inferior to what AI can produce alone: in other words, whether there is any way that the addition of a human to the production process can increase or improve the output of that process... AI can have an absolute advantage in every single task, but it would still make economic sense to combine AI with humans if the aggregate output is greater: that is to say, if humans have a comparative advantage in any step of the production process.

WOW I've spent years thinking that I suck at typing on phone screens, I never even considered that it might be the keyboard software is just shitty....

I hear what you're saying but also have lately felt a lot of frustration with this framing. I definitely agree that large corporations share an outsized portion of the blame; they have misled and misdirected us past the brink of crisis in pursuit of profit. And as you point out, one of the special cruelties of their system is that it prearranges individual consumer options so that we have the illusion of choice, but ultimately wind up complicit no matter what we choose. Thus its incumbent on us (collectively) to make a decision that's not on the menu we've been handed. But (critically) its still going to be individuals making that choice. It's not enough to merely topple Big Oil at a social scale, we will also have to give up our F-450s and sprawling SFH tracts with four car garages. It's not necessarily fair, and it's not necessarily our fault, but it's still our responsibility (because it's ultimately our future that's at risk).

This is basically what I think of as the "fundamental problem of conservation ecology", ie. that 'conserving' an ecosystem inherently changes it. The pre-human state definitionally could never be recreated (or maintained) by human hands, it will always reflect the contributions of its human stewards. So if conservation is fundamentally impossible, what's the real goal of conservation ecology? Is it doomed to simply create "theme parks"? Or can we be said to meaningfully preserve something (even if it's a changed or debased form of the original). Conservation ecology is what happens when these stupid philosophical musings bump into actual engineers willing to try to do it.

Human communities (even digital ones) ultimately have the character of an ecological system IMO (albeit in a more allegorical sense). What the author calls fungibility I might call conservation; weird Twitter accounts "migrating" to Bluesky is sort of like pandas surviving primarily in zoos. Some element of the original system is kept, but ultimately the "conservation" is more like "recreation" or "homage" rather than truly freezing the system in amber. Does that mean that it's futile to try? Or is there some sense in which we can have meaningful translation of the relationship web from one medium to the next? Maybe we don't even care about maintaining the system; if it's just the biodiversity we prize then maybe pandas in zoos forever is enough.

I don't think this is adding anything new to what the author is saying per se, but I find the parallels interesting to muse about.