The critique of AI systems that lives rent-free in my head is that they "hit the target but miss the point." In writing, especially technical writing, the target is conciseness, word choice, tone, etc, while the point is to effectively communicate authorial intent.
I find it hard to believe that the romans didn't bring rabbits with them. Also, given the fullness of time, it is hard to believe that rabbits didn't ever catch a ride with any number of pre-roman visitors.
This is false actually. The article OP linked is wrong or incomplete. The Romans brought and bred huge numbers of rabbits to Britain, for eating.
We know people are them because when the Romans left ("dark ages") they were eaten to extinction:
"Butchered hare and chicken bones appear in the archaeological record hundreds of years later, among Roman-period food waste. At this time, Sykes said, hares were farmed for food, and the Romans introduced rabbits to the island, although hares and chickens continued to hold religious associations for Britons. After the Romans withdrew from Britain in A.D. 410, the populations of hares and chickens crashed, Sykes said, and rabbits went extinct."
So what is going on in medieval times, centuries later, is they are being re introduced and horded by the Anglonorman aristocracy. This could simply be because, of course, half of England then is in today's France. The Plantagenet dynasty is even more French than the earlier Normans, who are of course mostly ex-Vikings. Later, at peak, the "English" Angevin dynasty territories stretch south from say Calais all the way thru Occ country to the Basques; and are intermarried with Spain and France. There's rabbits everywhere, trivial to bring back to Britain.
But they were apparently difficult and expensive to farm (which seems crazy as they breed like... rabbits) but this is perhaps explained by climate change-- the medieval warm period was about 950-1250 and then it began to get much colder. For example by 1315-1317 there was horrific famine caused by crop failures and abnormal cold summers. In this context the rich people are laboriously farming rabbits in artificial warrens inside of managed game preserves and poor hungry people get executed all the time for eating.
A good book for this era is Tuchman's 'Distant Mirror' which is like Game Of Thrones meets zombie apocalypse. Don't read it if you're French. It may be the reputational nadir of French civilization?
Landlords charge what the market will bear and generally have little if any price elasticity of supply, so they bear nearly 100% of the economic incidence of the tax. This is especially true where housing supply is constrained by zoning policy rather than the price of expanding supply.
It'll make it so new construction tends to be condos rather than apartments, since the first is heavily preferred by tax policy. This reduction in supply will mean higher rents.
New construction is like 1-2% of total housing stock annually. It'll take a relatively long period of time for these sorts of changes to hit prices because again, low price elasticity of supply.
edit: on slightly further thought, you'd also need this effect to either increase overall vacancy or reduce total construction, since any supply shift from occupied rental units to owner-occupied condos also implies a demand shift from renting to owning.
If they're losing money at market rents, what are they going to do about it? If they could raise prices, they would've raised prices before the tax because that's just leaving money on the table. If they throw an emotional fit and leave the unit empty, they're losing even more money. If they sell or go bankrupt, the new owner will have bought it at a lower price and so end up having a profitable business at market rents.
It depends on the price elasticity of demand. When it's 1 - that is, when a 1% change in price results in a -1% change in demand - then any change in supply reduces the total amount of money spent on the good. If demand is more inelastic, then increasing price will increase total spending. Oil is a particularly inelastic good.
Note that the amounts of money involved here are not equal, companies respond to price movements and expected price volatility with less efficient behavior, so the volatility itself causes economic losses.
Like, there's a trade you can do where you load up an actual tanker with oil, park it, and sell an option to buy that oil. The cost of using this tanker and holding this oil a pure waste compared to just having a market-clearing quantity available at a consistent price at all times, but if the market is scared enough it makes money.
That trade works when the market is in steep carry, usually a result of depressed prices.
That trade does not work today when the market is very inverted: you buy the spot oil, and sell a call in the future. But the term structure is pricing lower oil prices in the future. You take that hit on your spot cargo.
That trade only works if you are bearish the curve and bullish flat price. And if you have this view, it's just about the worst possible way to structure that trade.
The cure for high prices is high prices. Curve inversion ensures that anyone with oil today is incentivized to sell it asap.
The point is that the most efficient ways to physically handle oil products happens when prices are stable and predictable. I could have just as easily talked about the expenses involved in keeping a profitable-only-at-higher-price field on operational standby as a real option on oil prices, or increased shipping costs as localized price changes shuffle trade routes, etc.
Roko's Basilisk was never intended as a serious concern. It's a hypothetical used to verify that a decision-making algorithm does what you want it to - if it suggests that you should get blackmailed by it, you messed something up and need to go back to the drawing board.
You can safely ignore anyone concerned with Roko's Basilisk on topics related to decision theory as someone who is deeply confused about things.
They're hamstrung by property tax increases being massively politically unpopular. Prop 13 only bans taxes on the value of land, there's nothing stopping politicians from approximating LVT by an "urban acreage tax" based off plot size in cities other than the fact that it'd get them all voted out.
Not necessarily. The problem isn’t that the taxes are unpopular, it’s the supermajority requirement for tax increases that makes it a challenge. The L.A. Times had done a study in the 90s that showed that most tax increase referenda submitted post Prop 13 had majority support but all but one failed because it failed to hit the supermajority threshold.
Not everyone wants to live in a society where the American form of limited free speech is the accepted societal norm. Australia can choose its own views, so can France, and Britain, and Turkey, and China. It's not a colony of the us.
It should be no problem to call things by their name (censorship) then.
Censorship is the government suppressing information. If people actually believe that this is how things should be, let the government introduce official “censorship bills” and call publicly for “additional censorship measures”.
The fact that they aren’t doing that demonstrates that they feel the need to hide what they are really doing, which speaks of an inherent wrongness that has nothing to do with a US/non-US culture divide.
The post did not use the name "censorship", it just tried to trivialise the democratic will of a country which does not want to give more power to US billionaires, claiming it's just the whim of an "unspecified bureaucrat"
US views on the limited freedom of speech the US government allows are different to those of the limited freedom of speech that Australia, Germany, etc allow
All those countries limit freedom of speech, it doesn't make anything that doesn't exactly copy American "freedoms" (and indeed lack of freedom) wrong.
Of course argue this and HN will flag you
The more speech you have, the more powerful you are. That means those who can have more speech and more targetted speech (i.e. people who are wealthier) are more powerful. Not everyone likes that. You might, that doesn't make you right.
Companies like arbitration because unlike in a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff cannot compel discovery. Paying for an arbitrator is cheaper than going through discovery, especially if the discovery unearths facts materially damaging to the business.
reply