Fifty years ago Montreal was the business centre of Canada, now that’s Toronto. That $800 rate might actually be more affordable in a less business oriented city, or even Montreal itself since it’s seen a lot of decline in that time. Having said that, there’s zero debate rents are out of control. I own a triplex and every time a unit turns over and i do my research on rent i get a bit shocked. I’ve found myself legitimately concerned how someone can ask for full “market” rate when i know it’s simply not affordable.
A business center doesn't have to be expensive. That’s made to happen because housing isn’t allowed to be built in sufficient quantity, not a necessary consequence of success.
I think quantity is a valid concern but I also think treating housing as a speculative asset is an issue. Housing serves as a valuable speculative asset precisely because quantity is restricted by a variety of factors, but actually using it as a speculative asset raises prices significantly.
Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't (there's a bit of slack with relocations, house sharing and spare bedrooms but it's largely inconsequential.) That means that supply (i.e. quantity) is enough.
It's true that if it was impossible to speculate on housing, there would be less incentive to create artificial scarcity by e.g. lobbying for restrictive land use policies.
> Relative scarcity is the necessary and sufficient condition. Either there's enough housing or there isn't
This seems like an oversimplification. Speculation affects demand, so the amount of speculation is hidden within “relative scarcity”. If there is no speculation then demand is directly related to the needs and finances of potential occupants. If there is speculation then demand becomes connected to the buying power of the wealthy, and thus demand and prices are likely to be higher.
In particular, the wealthy investing class collectively have way, way more money than the renting class, so the finances of the wealthy class distort housing prices upward in ways which dwarf the supply and demand effects from actual renters moving in and out of an area.
Yes, but this speculation is grounded on the possibility of extracting future rents. Which is an assumption about future relative scarcity.
We’ve all decided that it’s totally fine to artificially limit the supply of real estate. Speculation is the market (correctly, in most cases) betting that that will continue.
Just saying "speculation" doesn't really paint the picture of what's going on. In 2010-s everyone here blamed foreign speculators hiding in the shadows, but we live in a different, worse, world now.
This country's housing and immigration & temp. resident policies are absolutely out of sync, intentionally. In 2021 they've changed the rules to add hundreds of thousands of people overnight, but did not build anywhere close to the corresponding amount of housing. Then they did it next year again, and again, and again, and they're still doing it, and the next government plans to continue doing it.
This isn't mere speculation. This is deliberate policy to manufacture a housing crisis. To not only keep the pre-existing crisis going, but to deliberately and methodically escalate it. Politicians profit both from their own investment properties and from bribes (ahem campaign contributions, speaking fees, board positions, ...) paid to them by all kinds of businesses who profit from oversupply of labour and undersupply of housing.
"Speculation" implies taking significant risk, often in an under-regulated market. But the current situation is nothing like that – there is barely any risk, when both the supply (zoning & construction) and demand (population growth) sides of the market are heavily regulated with the intent to raise prices. Capital is all you need to reap the profits, pretty much.
And yet most large cities have sections of it that are in total blight with abandoned homes, with windows blown out or plywood covering access holes to prevent intruders.
Much of the problem is that the bourgeois class wants to live in the popular neighborhood, bidding up rents and values in isolated sections of large cities. Meanwhile, large chunks of cities have relatively affordable, but not as attractive neighborhoods with homes that could be converted to house the homeless for a fraction of what it would cost to build new housing.
Just the other day, I heard a news report in my area where they allocated money for homeless at $100,000 per bed in order to add more beds to an existing shelter in the downtown area. Yet this city has neighborhoods with cheap and unoccupied homes that could be bought to house these homeless for much less than 100,000 per bed.
Here in Berkeley and other SF Bay Area cities, we have imposed an "Empty Home Tax" [0][1] at some $ and % per year. As a proponent, I figured it would incentivize people to either rent or sell their unused properties which will house people and get rid of blight. Neither has happened much and these owners just take the hit. Housing as a speculative asset has some pretty terrible consequences.
I don’t disagree that speculation on a critical resource like housing is a really harmful phenomena. Another concern is when people use housing as a store of value for diversity in their portfolio. These long term “investors” are less likely to care whether their houses are rented or occupied as they have enough wealth to weather the loss of revenue or even fluctuations of the asset prices.
The empty home tax is a great idea, but my guess is the tax/fee is not significant enough to change investor behavior. Or possibly it’s not being enforced at the level it should be?
>> "Disrespect current processes. What you call “legacy code” was done for a reason, is generating revenue, solving real world problems, and the reason you have a job"
I'd summarize and simplify your "What to do" by simply saying: Be curious but not annoying.
We have an extremely background (3x Founder/CTO + A bunch of other things). The largest issue I would find with new hires is simply a lack of curiosity and a desire to "perfect" everything without an appreciation for "why". It comes across as extremely arrogant and ignorant, and even more so when the individual becomes frustrated when they're not given free reign to implement their suggestions.
I’ve also thought of doing this, then i consider the possibility that one day I’m in a car accident and have an MRI while unconscious, only to suddenly reveal to everyone i had metal inside my body.
Improbable but i just don’t think the fun is worth it lol
Yeah, that was another concern of mine, or if I go through an airport scanner and have to answer awkward questions about why I've got a capsule concealed inside my body
As mentioned in the article, that shouldn't be an issue. Many people have reported going through without event. I'm looking to test it in a few months.
I’ve had one for ~7 years now and fly multiple times a year. I’ve never had it set off the metal detector, or more modern scanners at any security checkpoint in the US, or Mexico.
Shockingly common in civilian aviation, it’s actually one of the most common causes for accidents. Not sure about commercial but it was not uncommon in the military in the 50s.
They say there are two kinds of pilots: those who have landed gear up, and those who will. I’ve seen it happen with small planes three times.
It should be quite rare on airliners due to having two pilots and good warning systems. It’s plausible that the pilot would forget, but both of them forgetting and never noticing the plane screaming at them is unlikely.
It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several others going off simultaneously, which is highly likely if you've lost an engine due to a bird strike. Even if you hear or see the gear warning, you might be too cognitively overloaded to acknowledge and act on it.
> It's very easy to miss one alarm if there are several others going off simultaneously
The GPWS would literally be screaming "TOO LOW, GEAR" at you, over and over again. I find this difficult to believe. Being too distracted or overloaded to respond to it I can believe.
Perhaps there are too many alarms in case of a bird strike in a modern airliner? "Hydraulic pressure LOW","Voltage in System B Out of SPEC", "Cabinets in the kitchen area Open", "and by the way,the landing gear is not down".
One would imagine there are psychology experts at Boeing and others who do nothing else all day ,but decide if one or the other alarm should be prioritised and at which volume (too low and they don't hear it, too loud and it disorients).
It is a complex subject. I think in time we realise removing the third crew member was an error.
Most of those alarms would only be shown as text on the EICAS (Boeing) or ECAM (Airbus). Very few warning systems (the most important, like GPWS, TCAS, RAAS, the engine fire alarms, and the stall warning system) are aural and/or tactile in their annunciation.
EDIT: For a practical example, low hydraulic pressure in the left-hand system in a 777 would be yellow text on the EICAS that says "HYD SYS L".
I’m reading from aviation experts that the fundamental heuristic of “aviate, navigate, communicate” may have been forgotten as a result of panic following the bird strike incident (two minutes prior to the landing attempt). How should this principle have been executed in this situation?
Panic is understandable momentarily, but any professional pilot should be able to overcome that within a few seconds, and remember their training, which in an emergency is something like aviate, identify the problem if possible, and run checklists. Panic doesn't solve anything, and there's a comfort in having checklists and procedures to run. Something must have gone very wrong in training or with the plane for this to happen.
There's a standard short checklist for landing that includes flaps and landing gear. There may also be an emergency landing checklist that would also include those things.
The voice recorder and flight data recorder almost certainly survived. We'll know more after those have been recovered and analyzed.
I don’t want this to come across as second guessing a cockpit that I wasn’t in, but speaking generally, recover the aircraft to a flying condition (aviate), if not on a stabilized approach with high certainty of continuing to be (mostly aviate and some navigate), go around and hold at a safe altitude (A&N) while you run the checklists and assess the aircraft state (A) and tell ATC what your intentions are (communicate).
I don’t know what the exact state in that cockpit was, but the video of the aircraft sliding down the runway sans gear at a speed that looked well higher and well longer than normal touchdown suggests that they didn’t have a stabilized approach at the end, whether for good or bad reasons is something for the investigators to figure out.
the airplane is perfectly fine to continue flying for a while on one engine so their momentary shock should not have been an issue. they've trained extensively for this kind of scenario and should probably have gone around if the bird strike happened on final approach. like the other person said... the voice recorder almost certainly survived and will give more information as to the root cause.
It may have been both engines out and there was not enough time to turn on the APU for landing gear deployment. The belly landing was executed just fine but tragically it was the wall at the end of the runway.
it wasn't the wall that got them actually it was the poorly designed ILS embankment that should have been ground level. but yeah you're right it is somewhat probable that it was two engines out as the evidence comes in
Aviation is still much safer than back in the days where 3 or even 4 crew in the flight deck were standard. At some point the tradeoff between increased safety and increasing costs becomes unreasonable.
Here where precisely? Civil aviation is extremely safe in 2024, and this crash made worldwide news precisely because crashes are now very rare in the developed world.
If you demand 100 per cent safety, you are bound to be disappointed forever. Not even walking is 100 per cent safe.
Isn’t the point of rigorous pilot training and selection to pick out those who will not be ‘cognitively overloaded’ by a dozen or two alarms at the same time, even under great stress?
Every single person's mind is going to become overloaded at a certain stress & task complexity threshold. Establishing where exactly that point is for a given person is difficult/impossible - e.g. throwing pilots into genuine life-threatening situations to test their responses doesn't seem ethical.
Of course you don’t set the bar at that exact threshold, you set it higher so even after accounting for difficulties of assessment there would still be a comfortable margin.
Not every country/airline has "rigorous pilot training and selection" -- US airlines require around 5x the number of flight hours as non-US. There are, generally, not enough pilots.
Flight hours are increasingly useless. The planes fly themselves enough that there are serious problems when something goes wrong and situational awareness is lacking.
Can you link the source for the flight hour difference?
If true it does have some signal but it’s not entirely persuasive. After all there clearly are midwit pilots too with a lot of flight hours, who just manage to scrape by on each step of the way.
Edit: Who may very well perform worse in extremus than a less experienced genius pilot.
Are you taking that number out of your arsenal or from a source? AFAIK most South Korean pilots are actually doing their training in the US, since it's much easier to accumulate the hours, and there's more GA. I would think their training is about the same as US pilots.
Although the US airways system is much more developed and used than Korea's, given that Korea is a smaller country and has an extensive bullet-train network. So I could buy an argument where US pilots just fly more.
Most flights in Korea are international flights, so a pilot for Korean air probably flies as much as a pilot in the states. If the airlines need fewer flights, they could just go with fewer pilots rather than the same number of pilots flying less.
In the 1990s Korea and Taiwan had issues with accidents caused by military pilots without modern crew management cultures (“never question the captain”, which is a big no in modern commercial aviation), so they went with more career pilots trained from scratch (at American schools) rather than just transitioning military pilots into the role.
It has happened before due to another higher priority warning suppressing the "too low, gear" warning, so if there's a lot going on already including other warnings, it's not inconceivable that it was overlooked and the plane didn't issue a warning depending on the circumstances.
> It’s plausible that the pilot would forget, but both of them forgetting and never noticing
Not drawing premature conclusions here without evidence, but Asian airlines and aviation culture have a documented history of the co-pilot not questioning fatal actions by the captain in order to save face.
I know someone who had a no gear low-approach and prop strike, pulled up, got the gear down, and landed straight ahead. Not sure what to call that one, but I bet that pilot won’t do it again.
It’s definitely not impossible. Pilots can get fixated. “That noise is so annoying! Never mind, gotta finish this landing.” It’s rare enough that I think it’s not the way to bet here, and there was probably another problem. But we’ll have to wait for more info to know for sure.
Seems quasi-impossible on a commercial airliner. This thing is going to beep and alert like hell about the landing gears being up. The most likely cause is a complex series of event that led to the landing gears not coming down. Landing gears have multiple redundancies so this is predictably going to be an unfortunately very informative investigation for the aviation sector.
The more likely scenario to me is that they attempted a go-around after the bird strike and failed, leading them to land with gears up, no flaps, at high speed.
If the plane can tell it's super low the ground -- low enough to sound an alarm for it -- and that's a common mistake... why not just have the plane automatically deploy the landing gear?
Doing so complicates other hairy scenarios because of the increased hydraulic/power demands, reduced clearance, increased drag on the plane, worse handling, and the fact that in some emergencies you want a gear-up landing and would expect pilots to simply make the opposite error (forgetting about the gear being automatically deployed) some fraction of the time.
You do not want auto gear down. There are situations where having the gear down might makes much much worse and you might not be able to be in a situation where you can bring them back up.
I think so, and they're definitely more severe. Gear-up landings occur in something like 1/150k flights, and they're rarely fatal. Stalls happen in roughly 1/100k, near-stalls more frequently, and if unrecovered then they are almost always fatal.
The one plane I know of with auto-retracting gear had a fatal stall because of the feature, so it's not exactly a theoretical argument, but there haven't been a lot of empirical studies.
You're talking about GA flights, not commercial ones, right? I do not believe that a gear-up landing occurs once a day on average in commercial airliners.
Not an aviation expert or enthusiast, but I'd imagine in a commercial airliner if the gear was not deployed and the pilot was trying to land, at a certain point the plane would start yelling at the crew something like "NO GEAR" "NO GEAR" "NO GEAR (deployed)"
So I don't think a pilot can just "forget" to deploy the landing gear in a commercial airliner.
This does not only happen to little propeller airplanes. Heres an Airbus A320 where the pilot managed to land gear up despite the presence of all kinds of safeguards and automation.
I think the 777 landing gear warning is based on flap position, eg flaps 0 you won't get a warning, but you will probably get a GPWS configuration warning instead!
> I think the 777 landing gear warning is based on flap position
It isn't. If you're within a thousand feet of terrain, a runway is nearby, and you're at an approach for landing speed, it blares "TOO LOW, GEAR" in the cockpit over and over again. If you're going faster than approach for landing speed or there is no runway, it instead blares "TOO LOW, TERRAIN".
Likewise if you deploy more than flaps 20 without the gear extended (regardless of your height above terrain or the presence of any runway), you get a master warning and "CONFIG GEAR" in red on the EICAS.
I'd argue you might be missing the point. There was always something, airpods are just the current 'thing'. When I moved from Australia to Canada in 08 it took a solid 24 months to meet the people that are today still my friends. It was much harder than I expected...and more than once I almost gave up.
I doubt it. If things today were just as tough as they were 20 years ago, then we wouldn't be having such a massive loneliness and mental health epidemic.
Sure, some of it is due to more awareness on mental health than in the past, but a lot of it is also due to things just being worse and more difficult.
> it is also due to things just being worse and more difficult.
Is it more difficult, or do we have greater expectations?
I look to my grandparents' generation and they "settled" for their neighbours as friends. I seriously doubt they were perfect soulmates, but they put in the effort to make it work and ended up quite close as a result. Whereas people in my generation seem to want that instant spark. If that isn't felt, they keep looking instead of working on building a relationship with who is there. Nowadays, becoming anything more than an acquaintance with your neighbour is almost unheard of.
I'd say the "missing the point" thing is that you're complaining about how hard socialization in society is now, but the solution for our own loneliness is in ourselves. We don't need to fix others or society to fix the problem we see every day.
As in - When you, the digital-first-lonely-guy, put away your phone and turn to the obviously-busy guy on his phone with earbuds in and doing super important socialdoomscroll work and you say "Hey, cool shoes!" suddenly it's not a problem anymore.
Well yeah, to an extent. But i think the elders here are also relying on their experience in the before world to calibrate their "is this socially acceptible" meters. Young people have never seen a world where strangers spoke on public transport. They have seen media where young people think it's weird that random old's try to talk to them. They went to high school where every break between class was at least as much phone checking as speaking to any other person. They've been raised to think this is normal, so to them it's simply an obvious conclusion that speaking to other people is weird.
Now, you're correct that if they just fucking did it, it'd _probably_ be fine. But what happens when they try to speak to their peers who scoff and ignore them? Or when every person they try to talk to simply can't hear them. Or when there simply isn't a place to go after school and chat, and all social interaction stands on phone organizing as a prerequisite.
Yes, if they broke the seal on interpersonal interaction they'd see that almost everyone is actually positive and happy to speak and make friends. But that seal is getting harder and harder to break every day
It reminds me of the reproductive crisis that started happening in Japan some decades ago. The blame, as I recall it, was on the rigid social norms meant that it was super uncomfortable for everyone whenever a guy tried to talk to a girl. Guys stopped trying and switched to being absorbed in jobs and increasingly niche obsessions, further from the normalcy and reality around them.
Seems like we're not taking any hints from their example and instead saying "gee, society is bigger than me, woe is me, I'll just continue digging the hole".
You alone as an individual can't change societal norms since they really are in fact, bigger than you.
It's exactly like evolution in nature. Life didn't start on land because one single fish decided to jump out of the water an breathe air then every other fish followed, no, it started because collectively millions of fishes died trying to do that at the same time over millions of years till adaptation of the species to the new environment happend.
Society is exactly like that as a collective. Going against societal norms as a lone wolf, doesn't get you seen as some sort of rebel hero who everyone looks up to, but as a weirdo/creep most of the time if you aren't handsome, rich or charismatic.
The point of the conversation is that if /you/ are feeling isolated (and, statistically speaking, YOU ARE) /you/ can affect /you/ by breaking out of your lil self-imposed isolation chamber and doing what normal humans do: communicate.
Will doing so change society? Who gives a hoot? /You'll feel better/.
Frankly these excuses are just that. Excuses. Stop catastrophizing. Start trying. And, while I'm ranting, stop encouraging others to catastrophize too.
None of the advice requires the other to person do anything, but you're doing a great job of demonstrating that they /do/!
...
Thinking about this thread... I've had another thought.
I wonder if those that're trained to primarily communicate online are trained to do so adversarially in order trigger people. Triggering people is the most effective way to keep talking to someone. Like how they say if your child or pet can't get enough attention out of you they'll do naughty things, because even getting yelled at is... attention.
The irony of AI removing AI content. I used this for my marketing generation (using AI of course) real estate business and it misinterpreted examples as the actual listings.
Also if you use Https instead of https in the url field it gives an error…
I see it more like, there are a lot of relationships balanced by conflict, such as Adsense advertiser and target audience. The advertiser wants you to buy product, the target audience wants to get free content. Both sides will exploit every tool at their disposal (Adsense metrics, adblockers) to get an upper hand in the relationship. It just so happens that this time, AI can play both sides.
In a sense, it's like machine filtering out machine-generated text to get to the stuff that the human needs. Like grepping logs, but less deterministic.
Not sure what the path out here is? Seems like either finding deep pockets that care about their work or some new revenue stream, but without the cash to fund it I’m not sure how.
Maybe programmers at companies using Perl get together and raise the issue with management? It is a bargain. Imagine the cost of having to rewrite all that Perl.
Intel is so fucked it’s not even slightly funny. Anyone who disagrees, do the most basic research possible by reviewing their benchmarks. It’s like going back in time.
Single-threaded benchmarks without additional information are pretty much meaningless, because the single-threaded performance is easily increased to beat any competitor just by accepting a higher power consumption.
The best Intel core for single-threaded performance, Lion Cove, has an IPC (instructions per clock cycle) about 2% higher than AMD Zen 5.
Currently both cores are made by TSMC and they reach the same clock frequencies, therefore the Intel core is negligibly better in single-thread performance.
Nevertheless, Intel Lion Cove has a much greater area than AMD Zen 5, despite being made with a superior TSMC process. Because of this, Lion Cove is inefficient for multi-threaded performance (because in the same area more smaller cores could be crammed), so Intel is forced to use it in hybrid configurations with Skymont cores, in order to achieve an acceptable multithreaded performance.
The worst is however that Intel is not able to use its up-to-date cores in server CPUs, because they are too slow at design/validation. Their new server CPUs, Sierra Forest and Granite Rapids, use obsolete CPU cores that are not competitive with AMD Zen 5, instead of using the best Intel cores.
Unlike Intel, where 1 year or more of delay between using a core in consumer CPUs and using it in server CPUs is normal, at AMD they launch the corresponding server CPUs only a few months after launching consumer CPUs.
Hey - I totally get the single-threaded CPU fixation, but it's such a narrow slice of what matters in computing today. We really need to look at the whole picture: power draw, heat output, physical space, AND speed. Cherry-picking just one metric doesn't tell you much.
The biggest compute demands right now are all about GPU power, especially with the AI boom. And Intel... well, take a look at those DirectCompute benchmarks. You'll need to scroll past 100+ other cards before you even see them listed (https://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html).
They make great CPUs, no doubt, but they've got some serious catching up to do in the GPU space if they want to stay relevant in today's parallel processing world.
Which is not particularly important without the context of price, heat, availability, multicore perf, etc. As a whole, there appear to be better values on most fronts, though necessarily when all is combined in some opinionated way. There are certainly good values to be found in the intel world, but I can't think of a time where they have been so comprehensively challenged.
I want to believe, but in the meantime they’re killing the product I’ve been working hard to build trust with my own customers though. There is a limit to my idealism, and it’s well and truly in the past.
reply