On what principle would the Trump family's assets be seized? Just to pre-empt the idea that he corruptly became rich in office, that is actually fairly usual for US presidents to become suspiciously wealthy after their time in office [0, 1]. That's never been a reason to start talking about asset seizure.
Although given the current lunatic escapade it does seem like a good moment to remove him from office. There must be someone somewhere in the administration that thinks another forever war is a bad idea, even if they aren't worried about WWIII. I've never seen a presidency implode so quickly - this has to be the most illegal, unconstitutional, unmandated, immoral and ill-advised war of choice the US has launched in decades.
That isn't the case; mathematicians will do pages of calculations (particularly and especially the statisticians) if they can prove one approach is technically superior to another. These people, as a class, are the crazies who invented matrix multiplication. Something like MMSE is used because it provably optimum properties for estimating a posterior distribution.
It is certainly possible that there are complex approaches that the statisticians have not discovered or don't teach because they are too complicated, but they had a big fight about which techniques were provably superior early in the discipline's history and the choices of what got standardised on weren't because of ease of calculation. It has actually been quite interesting how little interest the statisticians are likely to be taking in things like the machine learning revolution since the mathematics all seems pretty amenable to last century's techniques despite orders of magnitude differences in the data being handled.
There's a couple of "ifs" there and the scenario seems implausible. If I look at the prime real estate in a city it tends to be a lot of skyscrapers rather than very large homes (with occasional exceptions like say a Buckingham Palace). But it looks like the economic equilibrium is lots of cheaper apartments rather than large homes for rich people.
> ... and even investment properties occupied by nobody ...
Not much of an investment. Something is wrong if that is happening, probably manifesting as a lack of supply. Otherwise what is the point of an "asset" that doesn't generate income, degrades over time and could easily be rented out at a profit rather than sitting unused?
Whatever scenario there is where it makes sense to have an empty property, assuming a sane policy backdrop, it'd always be better for the owner do what they were going to do anyway but also rent it out.
People don't want to rent those homes out because once you're doing so it's difficult to evict a long-term tenant. You just lose out a lot on flexibility - even if you try and manage that risk by leasing out housing e.g. on a yearly basis, landlord-tenant law often overrides that since there are strong ethical reasons for not evicting someone who has since come to treat that rental space as their home.
Short term rentals are better on that score: no one sensible forms a long-term expectation that they're going to live in an Airbnb that they've rented for a few days. (If you think short-term rentals are "bad" for the long-term market or have negative side-effects on the neighborhood, then tax them to manage that tradeoff. But banning them altogether is unconscionable and just leads to houses sitting empty and unused.)
There are some places in the UK (mostly new developments in London) that have a significant number of deliberately empty investment properties despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants. They are not being used for short term rentals either.
Although the easiest route (no-fault eviction) is being abolished soon, wanting to sell a property remains a valid reason to evict.
Some people just buy property as a speculative investment.
I do not think it is the main cause of shortages in London - that is people buying holiday homes, which are often large and centrally located. London provides a lot (restaurants, nightclubs, gambling, prostitution, financial services...) that attracts people with a lot of money to spend from all over the world.
> despite the law here making it easy to evict tenants
"Easy" is relative. "Evicting" an airbnb'er once the term is up will always be orders of magnitude easier than kicking out a long-term tenant who regards that as their actual home. There's not even anything necessarily wrong with this! The easiest way to address the issue is literally to slash any remaining red-tape that's making things difficult for those who would want to AirBnb these properties out, while managing the resulting side-effects (including the plausible effect on the long-term rentals market) by levying a special fee if necessary.
As a bonus, easy AirBnb rental provides an alternative for some who might otherwise want a permanent holiday home.
Niceness is the wrong lens to use for acting in a civilised way. Game theory generally recommends cooperation; in practical real-world situations most of the games we play are ones where the best situation comes from negotiation. The issue is more the truly enormous number of actors who either have remarkably short short time preferences, an unreasonable tolerance for risk or who are just unpredictable. That is one of the central themes of the whole liberal project, of course. How to minimise the amount of force required to contain irrational actors.
An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.
Someone who is truly horrible and comfortable with the idea of barbarism is actually pretty easy to get along with if they're happy to work with long term goals and are predictable in their deployment of violence. Their social place is probably in the military or police force. Or dentistry if they want more consensual torment.
> An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.
One can argue they can’t help it. But another strategy is to mimic that to gain an upper hand. Let’s imagine someone doesn’t want folks going down their street, they could pretend to act randomly and crazy. Even seasoned barbarians would stay away from that alley, not to even mention dentists ;-)
Does "the government doesn't get to decide what people can look at on the internet" count as C or D to you? It is the situation we've been in technically for 20 years now anyway; the world hasn't ended and it generally seems to be pretty workable. The status quo isn't an especially radical one.
20 years ago was only 2006. The internet has been around for much longer. The first consumer focused ISPs launched in the early 90’s, 35 years ago, but CompuServe and others were providing access to chat and BBS’s in the 80s.
I’d say nearly 50 years is precedent enough that government intervention is unnecessary.
The sentiment reminds me of the people who believe that having so much prosperity that people feel comfortable not working all year around... represents some terrible threat that must be vigorously resisted for the greater good! Think of what it would do to the poor metrics.
Literal overnight change might be too radical (although, frankly, I'd want to see some academic work on the matter because it sounds like it might work - typically the problem seems to be that the body politic tries every alternative but good policy first then blames the mess on freedom) but people who are scared of rapid improvement because they don't like change are a massive threat to human prosperity and really shouldn't be left in charge of anything important.
Delaying the industrial revolution was never a good choice at any point in human history. The potential gains from efficiency are unbelievably large.
Keeping people employed through inefficient bullshit jobs is better for the government than paying them to sit at home, since this way you have control over their livelihoods and their votes.
This is unnecessarily confrontational. The real point here is that there better functioning democracies than the US. They have faults, but Scandinavia and much of northern Europe (partially excluding the UK) much better approximates what you call a fairytale than a US perspective might allow you to believe. Trust in and satisfaction with government institutions in Scandinavia and Finland are much, much higher than in the US, and it's largely justified by their competence and delivery of public goods.
That's like 3-5 out of 195 countries and only 0,3%-0,5% of the world's population. Being born there is like winning the lottery so maybe take that into consideration when arguing with such examples since that's not the norm. Like what are the odds that people you talk to online are part of that 0,5%? So who's the one being needlessly confrontational?
>Trust in and satisfaction with government institutions in Scandinavia and Finland are much, much higher than in the US
I don't care about the situation in the US since I don't live there. I'm talking from the perspective in Europe(not Scandinavia) where I can't say the democracy is representing or serving me. No law maker asked about the major decisions the EU made.
> I don't get the frustration with wayland (the protocol) in the comments.
They took a firm principled stance against screenshots to start with, which set them up for the COVID WFH wave. Then we've got this questionable design that seems hard to make accessible since accessibility is a security risk and we're heading right into Agentic AI which will be interesting. I've been avoiding the Wayland ecosystem for as long as I can after the initial burn and it'll be curious to see how well it supports bringing in new AI tooling. Maybe quite well, I gather that Pipewire is taking over the parts of the ecosystem that Wayland left for someone else and maybe the community has grown to the point where it has overcome the poor design of Wayland's security model by routing around it.
My guess is the frustration is coming from a similar perspective because it is a bit scary seeing Wayland getting picked up everywhere as a default and the evidence to date is they don't really consider a user-friendly system as a core design outcome. Realistically Wayland is 2 steps forward even if there is a step back here or there. The OSS world has never been defined by a clean and well designed graphics stack.
I think wayland is OK as a user. But Wayland is just not really that UNIX.
As ordinary user, I actually don't care about any of this. However, from another perspective, I think this is a bad thing—open source projects have become product-centered, defaulting to the assumption that users are ignorant fools. This isn't how community projects should behave, but those projects is not that community-driven anyway.
After all, for a long time, so-called security has only been a misused justification—never letting users make mistakes is just a pretty excuse, meant to keep users from being able to easily access something, and eventually from ever accessing it at all.
> Then we've got this questionable design that seems hard to make accessible
I'm not a fan of ADA ambulance chasers on principle, but I wouldn't shed a tear see them be able to go after the bigcos that made this mess (e.g. IBM).
ADA seems like bullshit until something happens that costs you sight, hearing, manual dexterity, etc. Then it is significantly less funny overall, I assure you.
This was not my experience. For example, it want until chromium 110 that you could use webrtc+pipewire without overriding settings, in 2023. So maybe in a strict sense you could do it with fiddling, I don't think you could install any Linux flavor and screen share over meet reliably.
We went through this during COVID. There were a lot of things that were supposedly technically achievable if you spent enough time setting it up right.
What really happened was most people gave up and either tried to avoid screen sharing or switched distributions.
That sounds like a way to not get any progress. The way I'm used to this sort of thing happening is some company brings in a new proprietary standard, makes bank, then all the competition bands together to form an open standard to try and stop them. There is a bit of a tick-tock feeling as consortiums use more open and accessible standards to slowly lever power away from incumbents.
It is interesting to just glance at the history of USB [0] through that lens was originally developed, and it is interesting to see that as I would have predicted the group of companies that developed USB (MS, IBM, Compaq, etc) seem to be disjoint from the companies listed as precursor technologies (looks like that was especially an Apple-led consortium of hardware manufacturers organised around firewire [1]).
As your link shows, even if the IEEE 1394 promoted by Apple was technically superior to USB (mainly because IEEE 1394 had been derived from SCSI), it was killed by patents.
Many superior technologies have been killed by patents and the greediness of the patent owners has been futile and they gained very little from their patents, because people have always preferred something cheaper, even if less good, so the inferior USB has easily won against IEEE 1394.
The patent owners that hope to gain too much from their patents always forget that instead of paying a too big royalty it is always possible to circumvent the patent by using an alternative solution, even if that is inferior.
> The way I'm used to this sort of thing happening is some company brings in a new proprietary standard, makes bank, then all the competition bands together to form an open standard to try and stop them. There is a bit of a tick-tock feeling as consortiums use more open and accessible standards to slowly lever power away from incumbents.
And that leaves you with two standards (at least), non interoperable between them. In the case of hardware this can be really annoying, constraining and inefficient both for consumers and at large.
How likely is it that that can be avoided if, as in this context, the starting point is the current standard not being that great? It pretty much has to end in 2 different competing standards. Or there can be 2 different flavours of the existing standard which are quite likely to break interoperability and make reusing the name an annoyance rather than a help.
A downside of existing standards is it means it is quite hard to innovate on them.
It really is a damn shame that my Lightning connectors are all dead and useless despite being the empirically better connector because of Vestager's whinging and stupidity across the entire EU mobile ecosystem.
Lightning is not a better connector. It maxed out at USB 2 speeds and I needed separate bespoke adapters and chargers. I can now use standard USB C cords with everything, standard USB C headphones, connect my iPhone to my portable external monitor with the same USB C cable I use for my computer…
And if we're talking about 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about' - the other irony is they probably are doing something wrong. There are a lot of rules out there. The only reason it isn't being bought up in the conversation is because the person has a certain level of privacy.
One of the interesting things the Epstein drama has kicked up is legal or not, the powerful get up to some wild things at parties. And in their business dealings just based on the background number of scandals. If there is an organised group of people allowed to look there is just endless blackmail material which is going to get used, just like LOVEINT.
If we accept that any one person can take responsibility for their feelings then it follows that everyone is responsible for their own mind. Otherwise what exactly are we saying? And emotions are complex, especially offence, it is practically impossible to say that something will reliably offend a specific person without trying it and seeing how they react. Even for the reactee. Someone can easily say "whatever happens I won't get offended". But they might get offended anyway and then we're rolling the dice on whether they are vindictive enough to hold a grudge.
People learn that lesson then don't stir the pot without reason. Rather than saying "I don't get offended" it is generally better to prove it and push people for feedback from time to time.
There is also a subtle point here in things like "if the design is wrong, say it is wrong" - how is someone supposed to know if the design is "wrong"? Philosophically it isn't possible for a design to be wrong, the idea is nonsense. Designs have trade-offs and people might or might not like the trade offs. But a design can't be wrong because that implies there was already a right solution that people could deploy. If someone is going to be direct that is also a problem they run in to constantly - they're going to be directly saying things that are harsh and garbled. A lot of humans aren't comfortable being that person, there is a more comfortable style of being clear about observations, guarded about making value judgements from them and associating with like-minded people from the get-go rather than pushing to resolve differences. And spending a lot of time playing social games to work out how to organise all that.
> If we accept that any one person can take responsibility for their feelings then it follows that everyone is responsible for their own mind.
I don't think this follows! People are very different, so something can be genuinely true of a subset without generalising to everyone.
Crocker's Rules definitely wouldn't work for me, but it's explicit in them that they can only be self-invoked. Some people seem genuinely to be very thick-skinned (but easily annoyed by indirection and politeness) and able to 'take responsibility for their own feelings' in this sense. I doubt (m)any of them are truly unoffendable... and one could argue that they should be taking responsibility for their own feelings of frustration triggered by normal politeness... but I assume they know themselves well enough to know that they are better off when people try to be as direct as possible when interacting with them.
Where it breaks down is if/when they treat this as an objectively superior state of being and mode of interaction, and use it as an excuse to be rude to others.
Of course everyone can take responsibility for their emotions. It's simply that many don't. And some that want you to care for their emotions. More to the divide, there are many who won't consent to doing so it letting you not do so. It is also the case that everyone can decide about this.
Although given the current lunatic escapade it does seem like a good moment to remove him from office. There must be someone somewhere in the administration that thinks another forever war is a bad idea, even if they aren't worried about WWIII. I've never seen a presidency implode so quickly - this has to be the most illegal, unconstitutional, unmandated, immoral and ill-advised war of choice the US has launched in decades.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows-net-worth-us-presidents...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...
reply