This is actually an amazing sweetheart deal for Cursor. Many times with these high profile acquisitions, most stock is tied to LPA's and employment at the company, and also earnout provisions. The company then finds a way to parachute them out early, which both voids the earnout and their employment, thus they never vest most of the units and the few units they do vest get bought out at 409A valuations which are typically much, much lower.

In the case of Cursor this is an amazing boon as SpaceX listed at an almost 100x multiple which is absolutely staggering. Had SpaceX stayed private they could have 409a'd Cursor and got it for effectively ~100M$ cash.

Palantir builds these systems for the US government which is (hopefully) something you can hold accountable / can reasonably trust.

Meta builds these systems for itself to make digital cocaine and sell personal data to profit off everyone (including and moreso primarily the elderly and children). You can't hold them accountable, actually pretty much nobody can hold Zuckerberg accountable.

When Palantir helps USG spy on the planet the primary purpose is defeat enemies + protect assets. When Meta builds these systems the primary purpose is digital cocaine.

> slave class

This sentiment is by far the most ridiculous because you are simultaneously projecting a reality where AI does everything and so people are no longer needed, but at the same time people are needed and become a slave class. "Oh no the tractor was invented! Now nobody will need humans to tend the fields! They will surely now force us to tend the fields!"

It's also insane that we have come to the point that you can say something like this and publish an Axios link when anybody could just go outside and see most people are employed, participating in the economy, not homeless, have food, buy things and enjoy luxuries.

Am I to believe that Jeff Bezos is the primary driving force behind Labubus? Is the Chipotle down the street waiting for Elon to come to town so they finally have a customer?

Whoever fulfilled this contract gets a stop work order for gross incompetence and the CORs/COs should be terminated immediately

It would be better to compare this to commercial, like SOC 2, which is achievable even for small startups without much effort and on much more affordable budgets.

Notably SOC 2 full service is $20k including tooling (Vanta + Workstreet + audits), NIST is $20-30k (Vanta + partners), while FedRAMP is $500k-1M (Coalfire) just for implementation before getting into tooling and audits.

It is very important to distinguish the two because “affordable housing” is a marketing term that could reasonably convince someone that the policy is meant to help 80% of people including themselves, when in actuality it is low income housing which is restricted to <20% of the area population and even fewer voters.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47441833

Points: 5

# Comments: 1

The good news is this is totally fine with keeping cost of living under control and overbuilding, because prices will go back up over time. Most people aren't going to own their home until the 30 year mark so it really is a much, much longer term investment than anything like overbuilding or other factors can reasonably affect.

The problem is really that people started seeing 2x-10x returns on homes and started treating that like the norm. That is not a 'good investment' that is a 'money printer,' and in most cases the government does not want to safeguard that behavior, but it's hard not to when those same people panic like crazy if their home only goes up 2% in value in a year or, god forbid, decreases in value for a year.

There is really no good solution to that mentality, if there really was one then Wall Street would have uncovered it ages ago to get more people into long term ETFs.

When you are dealing with income levels it is universally called 'low income housing,' and the HUD definition is already scaled to local income levels, the 'A' in AMI stands for 'Area.'

You are conflating marketing ('we need more affordable housing!') with policy ('low income housing')

There are only really 3 scenarios where prices are low and demand is low:

[1] There is a dramatic surplus of supply, in which case if a developer is trying to build they've not done research and probably should not get financing

[2] There is some other factor (usually high crime) in which case again, developer should do their research, and the market is operating fine

[3] You are developing super early and operating within incentives offered by the city, usually tax abatements, which drive down the carrying cost and make it a better investment.

Also important to note that in scenario [3] a smart developer will slowly release inventory to restrict supply to meet demand, and as demand grows, release more inventory at the newly raised price, continuing to do so as long as the tax abatements advantage the strategy. This is common in successfully developed areas e.g. Jersey City, and is fine as long as broad scale collusion doesn't occur

What >you< are referring to and what it is conflated with by progressive policymakers is "low income housing" which imposes an AMI based restriction on the resident's income. This in turn means that 30% of their income is much lower and restricts the sticker price of the home.

In recent years, most 'affordable housing' policy has been advanced by progressives, who use that term for marketing purposes, whereas the actual policy primarily relates to 'low income housing' or even 'very low income housing.' This does not mean 'affordable housing' = 'low income housing', it just means the term 'affordable housing' is used in the title and the actual measures advanced are related to AMI and 'low income housing.'

We don't observe this phenomenon occurring often in the modern day only because cities sprawl rapidly and so the evolution of the suburb becomes a borough of the existing city rather than a brand new city. Otherwise Brooklyn, Jersey City, Weehawken, etc. would all be considered new cities instead of being referred to as the NYC metro.

The only silly thing here is that "low income housing" got rebranded as "affordable housing" and absolutely everything else got rebranded as "luxury homes" for political reasons.

"Market-rate housing" is even sillier given that it is literally the opposite of what "affordable housing" policies dictate

This is the beauty of the free market because it guarantees three things:

[1] Real estate is generally a good investment and will hold value or appreciate in the long term, because supply will adjust to demand shocks to rescue values

[2] If people want to live somewhere, houses will be built for them to live there

[3] Real estate developers and construction are solid, safe businesses with great unit economics because building may decrease prices, but may still increase demand

It's when you constrain and restrict a market that players have to adjust and then you get crazy scenarios