I wouldn't say the bulletproof window demo was "sus" - that was just a Windows-crashing-during-the-demo screwup. They didn't fake the stress test on stage :)
this is no longer the case. If your harness handles login through the Agents SDK, you can use your sub now. That's why your Claude sub can be used in Amp and T3 Code for free now, but not in Pi (at least not without workarounds)
Does it need to be proxied through the `claude` tool still? Or is it authenticating directly? From what I can see (for Amp at least), it's all being proxied through a `claude` binary. Perhaps I'm seeing outdated info from the announcement though?
Anthropic and OpenAI models are available via a number of different channels eg AWS, GitHub copilot, Google Cloud… using those kinds of platforms behind a vendor-neutral tool gives you the ability to swap models out while maintaining the same workflow.
I'm currently running VectorChord and I love it - with a fast backing disk, it's cut my postgres cost in half. Excited to see competition in low-RAM vector index tools. RAMageddon seems to be creating incentives to find more ways to take advantage of how fast modern nvme drives are!
Are there any stories you have heard which things have improved notably for the citizens since data centers were put in place? I see a lot of negative articles, but have yet to see where a city has used the revenue to say build a hospital, increase transit, or build something for the citizens, or just improve existing services. This could be a result of my feed being biased, so I'm genuinely curious to hear some stories about the good that these datacenters bring to local areas.
In a fully functioning spherical chicken market, once balancing in
If I buy land for $100k today, I can assume I'm going to make say $6k a year from renting it to someone and $2k a year from it increasing in value, giving me a 8% roi
If I instead had to pay just $4k a year in LVT, the price would reduce to $50k to keep that 8% roi. I'll still be making money for doing nothing.
Now if that LVT was returned to the population at large, it's quite possible the population has more money to spend on land, so I could increase the rental price from $6k a year, but then the LVT would increase, because the idea is it reduces unimproved land value to zero -- nobody should make money from occupying land, they should make money through improving it.
In reality though any LVT implemented would be full of loopholes which would introduce absurd incentives. Just like taxing income, and worse taxing earned income more than non-earned income.
LVT would push up the supply of rental properties by ensuring that property owners who don't rent out their properties or who don't make efficient use of land lose money.
Thats an incentive to rent out the property or sell up to somebody who will.
It would apply harsh market discipline on landlords - a demographic that has usually been rather coddled.
> LVT would push up the supply of rental properties by ensuring that property owners who don't rent out their properties or who don't make efficient use of land lose money.
That doesn't follow. If LVT reduces the net return on rentals, it will disincentivize construction and maintenance of housing in the first place. If it creates a net negative or zero return on property ownership, it may lead to abandoned/undeveloped property instead of housing development, or more property being used for other purposes than housing.
It's also worth pointing out that the existing ad valorem tax system used for property taxes is functionally equivalent to LVT, and does have these influences on the housing market. LVT proposals are distinguished by their being rooted in (fundamentally flawed) Georgist theory, not by being unique as a form of taxation in practice.
A property loses ~30% of its value when rented out and maintenance cost and insurance cost goes up significantly. Plenty of landlords rather have their property be empty and just collect on the equity gains over the years without putting in any effort.
> property owners who don't rent out their properties
The existence of property tax (which on a single house in some areas of the state is upwards of $15,000 a year already) already makes it absolutely ruinous to just sit on an extra house you don't need and not rent it out.
> or who don't make efficient use of land
A little more convincing. Though I suspect most empty land in places where anyone would be willing to live in California, is empty because our insane zoning laws don't allow what would otherwise make sense there (I don't care that it's like what most areas have -- it's insane to have laws that would make it illegal to build a place like San Francisco, Brooklyn, or Boston).
The funny thing about those zoning laws though is that they're held up by a rare case of bipartisanship:
- The MAGA Boomer set who doesn't want any more development near them because "it'll bring traffic" or noise or crime
- And most of the "progressives" who don't want any more development anywhere because "we hate greedy developers" and "Not enough of this proposed development is low-income housing for the government to dole out in lotteries to a few lucky families."
Idk, I’ve seen plenty of houses get torn down and replaced by a $2M house and just sit vacant years until they sell.
15k/2M is 75 basis points. Its definitely profitable to just sit on land especially if you turned it into a parking lot or some other barely improved thing.
That's standard operating procedure for any non-de-minimis importer. The $800 limit was only imposed in 2016, historically it was a lot lower than that.
Nope, Congress has authorized the executive to impose tariffs multiple times for multiple different reasons. Tariff Act of '30, Trade Expansion Act of '62, Trade Act of '74, etc.
Past congressional actions were premised on an executive acting in good faith, upholding their oath of office, and following Congress's explicit intentions described in the laws you mention.
A situation where a corrupt and incompetent president is explicitly trying to blow up the US economy using not-really-relevant laws as a pretext was not ever anticipated, and he will hopefully be strongly rebuked (e.g. impeached) by the next Congress.
SCOTUS ruled that his initial attempts at tariffs were illegal. He's used an entirely different part of the US code to try again (whether it stands is currently unclear; of course, the question of precisely who received the refunds for his previous illegal effort has received astoundingly little attention).
Your comment begins "Nope, Congress has authorized ..." which just supports the point of the GP that it is Congress that controls the setting of tariffs, even if that may sometimes mean delegating it to the executive branch.
Isn't part of the Jev marketing that it has "terra-class intelligence"? I don't know how much it actually achieves that, but unless that's EXTREMELY wrong, it's hard to see how a 0.3B model could claim to be an OS Jev.
Jevs marketing has a lot to do with claiming credit for this pardigm, when the devloper of Layla was actually the first to do it. Its quite annoying to see another member of the OpenAI mafia so clearly rip off someone elses IP.
What we should be talking about how Jev is actually closed source Layla.
