The cities are paying exorbitant prices for electricity to pay for safer infrastructure for rural customers (undergrounding).

Some cities have divested from PG&E and enjoy much lower electricity prices as a result.

https://archive.is/yFZjd

----

The complaint here isn't from SpaceX investors. It's from retail investors that are being forced to buy SpaceX stock on an accelerated timeline as part of the ETFs they likely purchased so that they would not be overly exposed to volatile single stock picks. The article isn't explicit on this point, instead vaguely gesturing to the series of mega IPOs coming and pointing out that retail clients need to plan for this.

There is a game being played here where the various indexes (NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.) are trying to sweeten the deal to attract big entries like SpaceX (and later OpenAI, Anthropic). The sugar they are giving is an accelerated timeline and inflated spot in the index (3x float rule). That sugar is paid for by retail investors, who may get squeezed when their index funds pay a high price for a small float of public shares, all on predictable days.

Before you say that retail investors should simply buy SpaceX themselves prior to the 15-day index inclusion, realize that retail investors also don't have access to shares at the IPO offer price. That benefit is reserved for large investors, private equity, etc. While it is possible that some retail investors will take this gamble and win, many will be taking a large risk.

To put it the other way, work that is distasteful in some way, should also pay more, but this is missing the point.

I think the point of the unionization is that the monopsony of a small number of AAA game studios gives them excessive market power to reduce compensation and especially to reduce working conditions.

A union can acquiesce to the passion tax and say that top developers at a AAA should make $150k/year (a bit low), while simultaneously saying that that developer should be able to see their children on nights and weekends. The project management that leads to "perma-crunch" is something that ought to be resolved on the employer's side, not by the employees.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326398

Points: 6

# Comments: 2

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48326260

Points: 10

# Comments: 0

If you give an insta-pot a 6 ft cord, someone will drape it off the counter and a child will pull it.

UL standards actually limit cable length for many appliances.

https://www.intertek.com/standards-updates/ul-1026-electrica...

Is it easier to hold back talented students with a low bar or push untalented ones to a higher bar?

That's the source of hallucinations. A path can be found between A and B, even if A is the 12th century Chinese royal court and B is the Easter bunny.

Interpolation and rote knowledge are still very useful. Most cognitive tasks are like this.

The thing that LLMs are not presently good at is extrapolation. You can train an LLM on pre-1904 literature, but you won't get special relativity from it, at least not without a human to prompt it in just the right way.

You can have an LLM provide a "novel math proof", but you are necessarily discarding 100 or 1,000 "novel math mistakes". The process is more like a guided walk (like the A* algorithm), with human supervision and intervention, not an autonomous math genius.

"They" are, of course, working on it. But the present implementation has some severe structural limitations (such as an inability for new or discovered information to affect model weights) that make LLMs as a human replacement incomplete.

A more nuanced view would be something like:

* AI lets you achieve your roadmap somewhat faster, but:

  * You incur tech debt that's similar to if you hired a dev temporarily for the features. You don't necessarily have someone on the team that understands the new code.

  * Similarly, you aren't upskilling your junior team members. So you aren't getting skill/wage arbitrage as much as before.

  * You will complicate the product. P2 features are P2 for a reason, but AI can cause them to be included and complicate the product for lower marginal gain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Single payer would be drastically cheaper than the current system.

The other benefits are just policies that slightly reduce GDP per capita based on a first order analysis.

We are able to afford so many other subsidies, so unclear why housing would be different.

Are you saying that billionaires are actually realizing capital gains to afford yachts, private jets, and mansions?

The owner, the bank, and the city all wish to maintain the illusion that a $10M building from 2010 is still worth at least $10M today, even vacant. No party wishes to realize the loss in value. Occasionally, the city may try to punish vacancy with a tax, which is still about additional revenue and not about realizing diminished value.

They are very comfortable, at least in the upward facing ear, for me. Foamies are only tolerable a couple of nights for me.

It's the vegetarians that constrain a shared restaurant choice.

I will generate an LLM output that organizes scattered information and thoughts, resulting in 1.25x the text. I then read and edit it, generate executive summaries, and send it.

It saves effort for me in organizing, formatting and summarizing, and the LLM is producing more structure than content.