Posts
Comments
I've seen this take a few times about land values and I would bet against it. If society gets mega rich based on capital (and thus more or similarly inequality) I think the cultural capitals of the US (LA, NY, Bay, Chicago, Austin, etc.) and most beautiful places (Marin/Sonoma, Jackson hole, Park City, Aspen, Vail, Scotsdale, Florida Keys, Miami, Charleston, etc.) will continue to outpace everywhere else.
Also the idea that New York is expensive because that's where the jobs are doesn't seem particularly true to me. Companies move to these places as much because they are trying to attract talent as the other way around. I know lots of students who went to my T20 university and got remote jobs. Approximately 0 of them want to move to ugly bumfuck even if it's basically free. The suburbs/exurbs maybe, but not rural Missouri.
Now if there is a large wealth redistribution, which seem extremely unlikely given the timelines and current politics, I would agree. Also thinking construction will get cheaper is pretty questionable. The cost of construction in the US has skyrocketed largely because of regulations, new tech won't necessarily be able to fix this.
its a public externality, you don't need a government division to run bathrooms, you just need to do 1. + provide a subsidy
Yea, the Cochrane meta-study aggregates a bunch of heterogenous studies so the aggregated results are confusing to analyze. The unfortunate reality is that it is complicated to get a complete picture - one may have to look at the individual studies one by one if they truly want to come to a complete understanding of the lit.
Betting against republicans and third parties on poly is a sound strategy, pretty clear they are marketing heavily towards republicans and the site has a crypto/republican bias. For anything controversial/political, if there is enough liq on manifold I generally trust it more (which sounds insane because fake money and all).
That being said, I don't like the way Polymarket is run (posting the word r*tard over and over on Twitter, allowing racism in comments + discord, rugging one side on disputed outcomes, fake decentralization), so I would strongly consider not putting your money on PM and instead supporting other prediction markets, despite the possible high EV.
As a trust fund baby who likes to think I care about the future of humanity, I can confidently say that I would at least consider it, though I'd probably take the money.
Is anyone else shocked that no one before Daniel refused to sign?
- Someone who left on bad terms and was incredibly pissed at open ai
- Interested in AI but has low marginal utility of money (academic, trust-fun baby, otherwise already rich)
- Ethical grounds
I guess I shouldn't be coming to this conclusion in 2024 but holy cow are people greedy.