He's being sarcastic because the standing theme on the internet for most of the last decade is that Musk is an idiot who only got where he is because his parents are rich or he stole from other smarter/harder working people. SpaceX tends to put a hole in this idea since he founded and funded it himself, and they've made more progress in space travel in the last two decades than all existing government organizations and contractors have since the 70s.
Huh? I don't see how MS has any blame in any of this. Client chooses not to upgrade systems. Client chooses to use crowdstrike as a vendor. Client chooses not to accept free support. At what point was MS supposed to do something here? There are loads of things to complain about or take issue with when it comes to MS, but I don't see how this is one of them.
Similar story here. 13700KF, no OC, had the machine put together 18 months ago at a respectable shop (Central Computers for those in the bay). I had regular stability issues and blue screens to the point I took it back to the shop after three months - they couldn't find anything wrong. Took it in again at nine months with increasing frustration - nothing. Probably should have taken it again three months ago when I was playing the new Helldivers and that would crash the machine every other time I joined a game, but by that point I was pretty exhausted by the whole thing (and the game had other, unrelated bugs that had me looking elsewhere).
Odds are good I won't be bothering with Intel hardware or recommending it to others for the next decade or more - this has been a flatly terrible experience (and I'll note the irony of finally deciding to spend on a "dream build" and this being the result).
Exact same story here, spent 4-5k on my build with a 13700k which has blue screened hundreds of times in video games (R6, Hogwarts Legacy, Cyberpunk) over the last year (to the point that I don't even play competitive tournaments now).
I did all sorts, switching from Windows 11 to 10, buying new memory (twice!!), countless days debugging, updating my bios, etc.
I'm relieved to finally have found the cause, but my goodwill for intel is burnt.
Do you know what the general fix is, is it just a BIOS update?
I have the same chip but have never had issues, but I also noticed it's thermal properties were a bit of a mess when I ran some benchmarks after putting the build together, so I slightly undervolted it in BIOS. Performance wise I never noticed any difference but it stays nice and cool.
Not that this excuses anything, or is even a real fix for the issue , who knows. I wish I'd gotten a thread ripper instead and will be getting an AMD when I build a new system again.
I began to suspect that it was the processor after I started doing Blender renders and either Blender would crash 100% of the time or I would get a BSoD, which I though was basically impossible on modern computers. The real sign was that dual channel RAM didn't work, but I refused to believe it was the processor. It was so expensive, I didn't want to entertain the idea that I would have to buy another.
A "solution" I had was to lower the amount of cores Blender could use to 12, instead of all of them, which was annoying, and that still only lowered the number of crashes, not stopped them. These crashes were bad too, in that they corrupted project files almost every time.
I basically did everything possible, with little success. All it did was make my computer slow to a crawl and still crash at random.
I don't know what I'm going to do next computer. AMD is seemingly having similar problems, so it's not like I can realistically switch with any confidence. I go close to 10 years between upgrades, so hopefully the landscape will look better then.
Unless you explicitly set your clock speed/voltage, it's overclocking, I can almost guarantee it. There has been extreme carelessness from MOBO manufacturers on top of Intel's problems.
I think there's another point to be made here that isn't often discussed. Even in a system where people that work hardest/smartest directly translates to the most successful - doesn't mean you have a good system.
Consider an environment where a million engineers are all working on their own startups. 99% of them fail and reward the work put into them with nothing. Some subset of the remainder makes barely enough to survive; a smaller subset makes enough to have a successful business; a smaller subset makes millions, and a smaller subset makes the vast majority of the money available. If the effort put into the thing follows a mostly linear line, but the reward is exponential, is this really a good system? Do the people at the top of this structure deserve the wealth they gain, even if they genuinely the best at what they do?
More and more systems today are winner-take-all. Entertainment is notorious for a tiny number of multi-millionaire artists/actors/comedians/etc., while the vast majority of people that try to make it end up with a succession of part-time jobs that never ends. Even if there's no nepotism or corruption, is a system where the people at the top get everything and the bottom gets nothing a good one?
There's something disturbing about PG's take to me - as if only the most successful are deserving, or worthy - that this warped reward structure isn't inherently unjust. It feels like the kind of justifications nobility and royalty relied on, but for modern times - "I worked hard, I found the market, I did everything right, so naturally I deserve more wealth than a human can use in a thousand lifetimes."
So to be honest, I find almost every single one of PG's points worthless. I don't care how easy it is to start a startup if the chance of real money from it is one in a million. I don't care about how much faster growth is when its billions of dollars for a few dozen people. I don't care if the new wealth is genuinely new instead of inherited, if all we get from it is yet another tiny group of obscenely wealthy people - meet the new boss, same as the old boss. And I especially dislike the idea that the "far left" should be happy that "labor has won". Having a system that picks a few hundred of the "most worthy" each year and adds them to the capital class is by no means what I could consider labor winning.
No, lack of building _is_ the main problem. It doesn't matter if the demand for homes is "artificial" or not - the easiest solution is to build more.
> Ask yourself, do Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US, Britain, Ireland, etc, all have the same inability to build or is there maybe some other common cause?
This is something I've wondered, and I'm of the opinion there's two reasons that are rarely discussed. One is the great recession/sub-prime crisis, which, at least in the US, caused a collapse in housing construction - I'm not sure how much this is true for other countries. The other is the coming of age of millennials, leading to a "bump" of people in their 20-30s trying to get their first home - I'd expect this to apply to most of the countries listed.
You really need to provide data to make that assertion. Shortages of buildings are not the only reason that property prices can be high.
Properties are made up of a building and a plot of land that it's attached to. Whilst we can nake more buildings, we can't make more land, so the land in a given location is by definition going to be in a permanent state of shortage. If more poeple want to live in that location OR (the main driver of this crisis) if more money is chasing the same fixed supply, then the prices rise. The land component is the part that has become more expensive recently, not the buildings.
> Shortages of buildings are not the only reason that property prices can be high.
It pretty much is - everything else is window dressing. Pretty much every single city in China is 3-10x more dense than any area in the US, so lack of land is a reason I find continually uncompelling. Our lack of density, zoning practices, NIMBY attitudes and car dependency all contribute to this, with the result being a lack of construction.
Here's a grad student on tiktok who does good, well-sourced analysis on this front (he has an entire playlist on the issue of vacancy rates given how frequently it comes up): https://www.tiktok.com/@divasunglasses?lang=en
Land price is inherently tied to buildings though, in the sense that the cap of value one can realize from land is the maximum square footage you can build by zoning.
Land that you can develop into multifamily that still has capacity is getting ever rarer. If you poll Americans the preference split is 60-40 suburbia for suburbs vs dense walkability, and yet in metropolitan regions the residential land allocation looks more like 93-7. This shows up in square footage prices, where dense walkability is priced much higher per square foot.
It’s a shortage of floor space that is the issue. The problem is the Anglo countries have mostly made it illegal to supply it, in both dimensions. Auckland clearly showed this when it upzoned.
Doesn't the US already have something like the most sq footage of housing per capita in the world amongst major countries?
We have lots of secondary and tertiary homes, parked empty RVs, vacant investment properties, and lots of floor space per occupant, empty spare bedrooms, dedicated social entertainment rooms that are only used for parties, etc.
This might be one of those things where the obvious bit (built more!) is both true, and reductively incomplete. We do have a sense that just building more housing in the presence of lots of liquid capital and easy credit seems to create a speculator market -- even down to retail investors. (e.g. The China real estate bubble bursting seems to be strong evidence that this can happen.)
We also have some evidence that building a single type of housing leads to another kind of speculator bubble (e.g. the subprime mortgage crisis of the early 2000s was proceeded by a massive wave of construction of primarily giant single family homes for example). Even if somebody was interesting in buying something smaller at that time, there wasn't inventory anyways - yet those smaller housing units were not where prices increased the most (note: I'm aware I'm not providing specific evidence of this, but if memory serves it's basically correct) yet they often saw large increases in rental prices.
So from those two examples we can likely say that a market that:
1. Speculation causes housing prices to rise, even when millions of units are being built.
2. Lack of diversity in housing construction can lead to both high prices for some types of stock and lack of availability for others.
So how can we solve this beyond the trivial "build more"?
I'm starting to believe a few things are needed for a healthier housing market:
* We need to limit housing speculation, or at least make it less interesting as an investment option. In South Korea, they've introduced various taxation schemes that limit the appeal of owning multiple properties after decades of housing speculation. The idea there is that housing does exist, but occupancy rates are lower than desired. The result seems to have been an explosion in new housing starts with entire districts in Seoul being razed and rebuilt.
* We also need to find ways to ensure diversity in housing. Now that interest rates have gone up and single family homes seemed to have softened as a market, it seems that developers are concentrating on building "luxury" units of various other types. It's a good start, but if these units are still outpricing need, then they'll sit empty or end up speculated on. Many areas have dealt with this by mandating a certain amount of "affordable" housing, but that has turned into a joke in these areas.
There needs to be other ways for developers to build lower budget units, perhaps tax incentives, or changing zoning to allow for more types of housing.
Here's an example of the problem: The D.C. Metro recently added an entire new line to the system intended to connect the major international airport into the city. The areas around the new stations along the line have all been subject of new rezoning plans, higher density, urban fabric, etc. However, the construction that's happening along that line, while adding tens of thousands of new housing units, is almost all "luxury" (e.g. high price). One of the areas along the line is among the largest reurbanization projects on the planet (Tysons), and Reston/Herndon could grow into a contiguous "city" as large as many other "name recognized" cities in the U.S. like Providence, or Salt Lake City. Average housing unit prices in that area have been rising double digit percent per year (quarter over quarter) with the average home price (not just single family, but condos, town homes, etc.) is at around $700k USD. People who bought in this region even just a few years ago would be unable to afford their own homes today given pricing and interest rates.
So we see another example of "build more" and even "build more types" but aren't being met with "limit speculation" and "build more diversity" - and even in the presence of harder to get credit, the prices are spiraling.
Because property taxes are one step removed from builder incentives. Better to directly adjust builder housing price choices, at least for intents of building less luxury housing.
> developers are concentrating on building "luxury" units
And many of those "luxury" units don't cater to families, but single people. You'll find 1 or 2 bedroom units with bedrooms where you can barely fit a queen sized bed. So these are units that are not only more expensive than, say prewar or midcentury units, but more expensive per unit area than those units.
I think you might be missing the point of the poster. While building more might in the reduce housing stress in the next few decades, rapid building for the sake of feeding the investor market is pouring gas on the fire.
This is where discussing the housing problem becomes challenging. Half of us want to burn the whole system down and take housing back to the basic human need it is, while the other half want to work with the system we have.
Honestly, I just don't get this view - moderation provides clear, obvious value. You know what, we can have an experiment. I'll provide a list of things that are handled by moderation, and you pick which ones you think should be moderated.
All of those require the interpretation and goodwill of an authority that I do not trust (and certainly does not express my own will as well as I can do it myself).
If you're incapable of trusting some sort of authority on this, why are you here? Go host your own community. Everyone else in the world is willing to make some sort of sacrifice on this front so their community is, in fact, a community, and not a pile of trash.
As for trust - I'm not really sure what trust has to do with it. I evaluate communities based on their content, and what I don't see is often just as important as what I do. If I like it, I'll stick around - if I don't, or if it changes, I'll leave. The community is operated by the people in charge of it, it's theirs by default. Do you visit people's houses and refuse to take your shoes off because they're the "authority"? Seems like an odd thing to get hung up over.
I feel this was largely predictable, and for one reason I almost never see mentioned - the millennial generation just being larger than the one before or after. Millennials are noted as being the largest generation since the boomers, and their coming of age as far as prime home-buying time coincided with the collapse of housing construction post-2008.
There's other things at fault, of course - zoning, economy, interest rates, etc. etc., but the current stress on the housing market lines up pretty nicely 80s-born millennials (particularly those that graduated into the great recession) finally hitting their stride and having the wealth to move out/stop renting/have kids, after most of a decade of that being suppressed.
I'd expect this to continue being a problem for the rest of the decade and peter off in the 30s - it feels like governments are taking action (years late as usual, but better than not); movements like YIMBY have matured, boomers are hitting the age where they start to pass, and housing construction has ramped up slowly in the last 8-10 years, and millennials will have mostly bought by then, with gen Z being the new, smaller crop of buyers by that point.
Climate town just did a piece on natural gas leaks and how its a much more serious problem that previously considered - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oL4SFwkkw - certainly soured me a bit on natural gas in general, at least until there's better regulation in place.
I disagree. Farming has been the default job in human society for thousands of years - and still is, even today. There's nothing special about farmers, they aren't geniuses, the work is not that difficult - it requires effort, care and perseverance.
And this shouldn't be surprising. Farming is a very human activity, and can be done by pretty much any human. You don't need to be exceptional to do it. In fact it would be ridiculous if you did - imagine if only 1 in 50 people was brilliant enough to become a farmer - human civilization would never have gotten started.
Praising something like this feels silly to me, much as when people talk about "being a mother is the hardest job" or similar. It's not. Being a mother is a common human experience, and most women go through it.
This isn't to say such things shouldn't be celebrated. The idea of celebrations around harvest or motherhood is appealing to me, but there's nothing exceptional here, and there shouldn't be. Simple things, regular things, things everyone can do or goes through are worth celebrating, not just the exceptions, the geniuses, the stand-outs.
Being a parent is definitely harder that being a software engineer if you want to do a good job. Same for being a farmer. It isn't the default job anymore for a reason.
You could argue more women nowadays don't want to be mothers because it's hard. Especially if that's the second job and unpaid, actually you have to pay lots of money to be a successful mother. So yeah, it's exceptional... that anyone wants to have children at all! Though that's quickly changing, too.
> Being a parent is definitely harder that being a software engineer if you want to do a good job. Same for being a farmer. It isn't the default job anymore for a reason.
There's a difference between hard = effort, and hard = difficulty. Most people struggle to understand software engineering concepts. If you do understand them, then the effort required to succeed at the job is less than parenting/farming/etc; but there's a reason software engineers are in the top 20% of the economic ladder and picking vegetables on a farm is on the bottom.
And at last check, subsistence farming was still the default job worldwide. Perhaps things have changed in the last decade or two, but I have my doubts.
(I'd also take issue on the idea of parenting being difficult, vs. good parenting, vs. newer cultural expectations on parents/education/helicoptering, vs. kids being free to roam etc etc., but that's a whole huge discussion on its own - and I think there's a pretty strong argument to be made that raising kids is not harder on either axis than having a job, but doing both at once is very difficult and forces an economic choice many women are making in favor of money.)
As both a farmer and a software engineer, farming is way harder – and I don't mean in terms of effort. To your economic point, farming pays better too.
Sure, neither is hard if you want to do it at subsistence level. Hell, I started programming at like 5 years old. Software development is the easiest endeavour a human can partake in – so easy, it is easily picked up by young children who can barely read. Anyone can build software.
But I think it is far to say that building robust, reliable, maintainable, performant, and scalable software that satisfies a market need is a different story. And same goes for farming. If you want to farm at a level beyond subsistence, that is when it becomes hard.
I was kinda with you up until you started talking out of your ass about parenting, it is probably the hardest job I've ever done in my life, and I have had various physically and/or mentally challenging jobs.
The key to why parenting is such a hard job: it literally doesn't end for about two or more decades and you absolutely cannot quit or slack off on this gig, no matter what!
Just because something "always has been" doesn't mean it's easy.
> The key to why parenting is such a hard job: it literally doesn't end for about two or more decades and you absolutely cannot quit or slack off on this gig, no matter what!
We might not like to admit it, but people can and do, all the time. There's an ideal as far as being a parent goes that we try to hold people to and enforce culturally - but that doesn't stop people from getting divorces or dumping their kids on their partner or parents while they go off and do their own thing. I know a number of people that more or less raised themselves - their parents provided necessities and that was about it.
There's also a larger discussion to be had on parenting and why it takes more time and effort than past generations; the difficulty of raising kids with two working parents; the move away from extended family groups and close neighbors that can help with kids; the increase in helicoptering/worrying and loss of independence; all of which contributes to making things more difficult.
> Just because something "always has been" doesn't mean it's easy.
I never said it was easy. What I said was it's not the hardest job, it's a common human experience, and it deserves celebrating even if it is an average, common thing.
> There's nothing special about farmers, they aren't geniuses, the work is not that difficult
This is absolutely laughable. The work is incredibly difficult. It literally destroys your body, every old farmer I've ever known has a heap of medical issues from having to do a lifetime of physical labor. It may not be intellectually difficult, but it's very difficult work.
