@SebastianCaliri Good analysis, especially for real estate. Housing in desirable/high productivity areas is a positional good and will likely do well in a richer society. But I doubt commodity housing in third tier cities does well.
@lymanstoneky This would be a bigger issue if high-income buyers didn’t generally subsidize the lower group in a variety of ways. Sure, they’re getting 3% back on a meal, but the extra $30 they spend on drinks makes the restaurant’s economics work overall.
In July 1985, over a billion people watched Live Aid.
Months earlier, Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie had written "We Are the World." All of it was a response to a famine in Ethiopia.
Almost nobody remembers who actually caused the famine. 🧵
I accidentally used Bing search (my bad) with the intention of pulling up a specific press release--and watched in horror as it spun up "copilot search" and did nothing for ten seconds before loading the SERP. Huge step backwards in UX.
A lot of AI discourse is "If you invest huge amounts of human capital using tools appropriately, you get extraordinary results." Two thoughts:
1. Doesn't sound like the elimination of all jobs.
2. On the other hand, the "human capital compliments chess engines" phase was short.
Seems likely that norms around smartphone usage will shift dramatically in the future as harms become better documented. People will look back on it like we do on smoking.
The smoking gun is that Back wasn’t engaged with Bitcoin until 2013. There’s no way he wouldn’t have engaged with it earlier. The rest of the evidence is circumstantial (and in some cases unconvincing—Carreyou doesn’t fully understand the community).
The mystery of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous inventor of Bitcoin, has remained unsolved for 17 years. Not anymore. Read my 18-month investigation to find out who Satoshi really is. https://t.co/fPtaK6YHJC
Claude Code > Codex. Codex just seems to get lost. It keeps proposing solutions that are obviously not correct, even for a very rusty software engineer like me. The only wrinkle is that it's start-of-project plan seems better than Claude. But once you get going it loses the plot.
@tgof137@myonlinetrust Correct framing is then to compare (# of mutations in market) * (# mutations outside of market) to 90,000. So maybe 50 * 1000 = 50k. That also gives a floor for likelihood of a collision. If the mutations aren't randomly distributed, the probability of a collision is even higher.
@tgof137 This claim is objectively incorrect. After ~350 mutations, you'd have a 50% chance of seeing the same mutation twice. It's an instance of the birthday problem: https://t.co/654an28q8F