Yeah, his website says he's "A Sr. Threat Researcher". It seems extremely unlikely he'd be in charge of rolling out "Microsoft Copilot to 4,000 employees". Not to mention an actual executive would have better writing skills than what's demonstrated in his stream-of-consciousness tweet.
>I haven't found any asynchronous IOPS numbers on HDDS anywhere. The internet IOPs are just 1000ms/seek time with a 8ms seek time for moving from the outer to the inner track, which is only really relevant for the synchronous file IO case.
>For asynchronous IO you can just do inward/outward passes to amortize the seek time over multiple files.
Here's a random blog post that has benchmarks for a 2015 HDD:
It shows 1.5MB/s for random 4K performance with high queue depth, which works out to just under 400 IOPS. 1 queue depth (so synchronous) performance is around a third.
>America is pretty great if you're in the upper 20% or so, and otherwise it's losing ground fast.
The bottom 80% is also going to find it hard to move to another rich country. Countries in general want highly paid professionals, not a 50th percentile desk jockey.
>to the infallible balance of supply and demand that definitely hasn't been rigged to hell over the past half century
How has "supply and demand" been "rigged"? A lack of supply isn't evidence of "supply and demand" being "rigged", it's it working exactly as predicted, not any different than oil prices going up when there's some geopolitical event threatening supply.
Funny, because you hear the same hand-wringing about how public companies (ie. the exact opposite of PE) only care about next quarter's earnings report. By that metric, PE is better than public companies, because their source of capital is more secure and don't have to worry about flighty shareholders dumping their shares.
That "housing is more than a market - it's where people live" is a platitude. It sounds nice. But it doesn't tell us anything meaningful nor solve any problems.
can you please explain how these graphics are supposed to support your argument? it's not clear to me and i'm trying to understand the georgist POV.
nonetheless, materials and the cost of labor are the most significant costs for new buildings. not land, taxes, or zoning regulations. here is one example where this is a fact: www.vermontpublic.org/local-news/2024-05-23/uvm-halts-student-housing-project-construction-costs-workforce-shortage
Switch from "national level" tab to "metro level", and select los angeles for an extreme example. Look at the the figures right of the map, that says "share of SFD units build before 1980 with a land share of" and compare the figures between 2012 and 2024. Just by eyeballing the percentages, it looks like the land share went from 50-60% to 70-80%. This is confirmed if you sum up the figures in a spreadsheet, you go from an average share of 51% to 72%.
You can compare this to overall housing prices in the LA area[1], prices in 2024 is 262.7% of 2012 prices. Suppose you have a $100k house in 2012, that will worth $262k in 2024, an appreciation of $162k. Using the land value percentages above, the land value of the houses are $51k and $188k respectively, an appreciation of $137k. That means 85% of the appreciation was in land, not because building materials got more expensive or whatever.
Did you intend to add something after the definition? For better or worse, "moving out once you reach 18" is widespread enough of an expectation that it can be used as a yardstick for housing shortage.
I think it's interesting how "shortage" is defined across different products.
From an economics standpoint, "shortage" isn't a useful word, unless it's applied in the extremely unlikely scenario where there nothing is available at any price. Generally, this is because price dictates supply.
"Shortage" for the current housing market is generally used to mean, "relative to historic trends, many people want houses who can't afford the current prices."
Shortage in the absence of price controls generally means that something is inhibiting supply from increasing as demand does, causing increased demand to have the primary result of increasing prices rather than increasing production.
Sometimes this is expected or unavoidable, e.g. if you have a sudden increase in the demand for electricity then the price will increase temporarily until new power generation or transmission capacity can be brought online, and in the meantime you have a shortage.
The problem comes when the shortage is a result of artificial scarcity as it is with housing/zoning, because then it's not temporary, it persists until the cause of the artificial scarcity is defeated.
Shortage is almost always used with a hidden assumption that the current price is "bad."
Truckers are currently retiring faster than they're being replaced. So some folks are saying there's going to be a "trucker shortage." In reality, there are plenty of people out there who could get a CDL license and drive a truck, but don't. Why? Because the compensation for being a trucker isn't high enough because the demand isn't high enough.
For housing, from the house seller's point of view, they could have the viewpoint that there are far too many houses for sale, the supply is too high, they want a higher price for their house. And from the buyer's point of view, there aren't enough houses because they want to pay a lower price.
I'm not saying either side is right/wrong or good/bad. It's just that "shortage" isn't a very useful word.
> For housing, from the house seller's point of view, they could have the viewpoint that there are far too many houses for sale, the supply is too high, they want a higher price for their house. And from the buyer's point of view, there aren't enough houses because they want to pay a lower price.
And who is right is then determined by the market, because "not enough" means "the price is higher than the cost of creating more" at which point the market creates more. Unless the government is suppressing the ordinary market through rules imposing artificial scarcity, which is the evil to be prevented.
It's more like "relative to historic trends, many people want houses [in desirable areas] who can't afford the current prices."
Building tons of new houses outside of the hot areas that all these people want to live would still elicit cries of a shortage and an affordability crisis. Because there are currently affordable places outside of hot areas, but not very many takers.
It's a really tough nut to crack. Because how do you reorient the demand to those areas that have the supply? It's not easy. We can't seem to do it currently, and there's no real plan to do it if even if we could somehow build even more housing. We'd have to build lots of housing only in hot areas. Which sounds easy enough until you realize the economics don't make sense and even on the off chance that you could, it would only generate more demand.
First order of business however should be to find a clever way to stop abuses like the ones outlined in the article. The housing that would free up in the hot areas would not be near enough to meet the demand, but if we stop that nonsense at least we're not "digging the hole deeper" so to speak.
Exactly this. There's something about housing which causes so many people to think its an easy thing to solve by just building more and that's not actually true
Or find ways to create jobs in places 3 hours away and distribute the population better like we used to do, in addition to trying to increase build out rates
> Because how do you reorient the demand to those areas that have the supply? It's not easy. We can't seem to do it currently, and there's no real plan to do it if even if we could somehow build even more housing.
Uh have you heard of telework? I am sure that both federal and state governments could incentivize companies to offer telework instead of some forced RTO situation.
"food flown around the world " is very much affordable by the middle class. Tropical fruits, for instance is at most several times more expensive than domestic fruits. They're not going to eat mangoes or lychee on a daily basis, but they're not exactly caviar either.
reply