Legislators are (with rare few exceptions) not independent from the power of their party (meaning, they either align with party line or don't stand a chance of being elected). And each party has a nearly endless supply of new corrupt people to substitute in. Even if we had single term term-limits for every role, each party will keep cycling in new corrupt party-aligned people into those roles.

What we really need is a system where legislator are in a position that it is not feasible to corrupt them. It's fun to think of ways of designing such a government, but of course it will never be allowed by the powers that be.

I think it is different because that guitarist on the band that released a CD is a famous musician, at least famous enough to get a contract and release a CD. So I, as a hobbyist, don't expect to be as good.

But now there are thousands of regular people non-professional musicians on youtube (or wherever) who are a hundred times better than me, so it can become discouraging.

As articles like these show, cloud-based LLMs don't work in your interest today.

The legal shift is the key part. We've now discovered that the US has a very well thought-out separation of powers on paper, but it only exists on paper. There is no enforcement mechanism if a president decides none of that applies to them and they can role-play dictator. That means every future president can also do the same. So there is no way to trust anything the US says or does.

Unless there is a major constitutional reform soon that assures in absolute terms that no future president can ever overstep their constitutional authority. This is the legal reform necessary for any other country to ever trust the US.

The point is harassment, and trying to trick you into some perceived lie so they can detain you. The US is friendly like that.

Had to LOL at that understatement. Google invented the ultra-aggressively non-existent customer support model.

In theory (occasionally in practice) when you purchase a stock you are purchasing a piece of the future cash flow of that company. For a company which operates in a known environment and we can roughly predict how their revenue will grow (i.e. boring companies), the correct fair value of the stock can be easily computed.

So, no, those predictable companies should not be valued much higher, they are already valued correctly because the are no big surprises in their future, the profits and revenue are predictable.

This logic breaks down with companies where the growth can't be predicted to any reasonable accuracy. So in those you're just buying the hype, which sometimes turns out to be real, sometimes not.

Unfortunately this also incentivizes some companies to pump themselves purely on hype so they never get valued on actual revenue and profit. Tesla is a prime example of this. If you value them as a car company we can easily compute a fair value, but that number is very low. So, instead, robots! AI! self-driving! Space! That keeps the fair value an unknown, so it can ride the wave of hype for a long time.

Market cap is not a useful comparison because it can (as here) be driven by hype.

A better comparison is revenue and profit, that tells us a lot more about the business each is operating.

UNIX was ubiquitous in the data center well before Linus even posted his first version of Linux on USENET.

Everything ran on SunOS, HP-UX, IRIX, AIX, etc.

I can say that easily over 90% (pretty close to 100%) of the most useful answers I would find in stackoverflow back in the day, were from questions/threads that were locked as bad questions (forget what term they used) by those horrible moderators.

It was literally a joke. Every good question with thoughful useful answers, was always poo poo'ed by the moderators.

The only reason stackoverflow remained useful is that those questions and threads remained available and were a treasure trove of useful information. If they'd actually deleted the threads moderators declared useless, there would have been zero useful content on the site.

It is really a monument to failed moderation policies.

I don't know if it changes the result significantly, but remember the NJ has very high property taxes, more than double of California. So mortgage cost alone does not paint the full picture.

This is more significant for seniors, who likely have a paid-off home so their main expense is property tax. So being a fixed-income senior with a home is likely more affordable in California than in NJ. The worst thing after retirement is cost increases when you no longer have a salary that goes up with inflation.

You'll be very hard pressed to find any home owner who actually thinks in this cartoonish way.

When people oppose changing the character of their home neighborhood it has nothing to do with "treating their primary residence as an investment". It is because they selected a place to live, to call home, based on some criteria that they liked. Everyone does. A home is a big commitment, so you spend a lot of time researching exactly where you want to settle down for the next many decades. You pick an area you like, a neighborhood you enjoy.

For some people that might be quite rural, for some people distant suburban, for others near-city suburban, for others inner-city center. Whichever type of area you select, it is because that's the kind of area you personally enjoy the most. Somehow this obvious truth is controversial on HN for reasons I don't understand, but it is the truth. People select what makes them happy, no surprise.

So, when people oppose seeing their suburban area torn down to build highrises, it has absolutely nothing to do with home values or investments.

People oppose it because they very intentionally chose to live in a suburb far away from highrises and now they see those imposed on them. Of course they're unhappy. Basic human nature, nothing to do with investments.

If someone feels this is not so, I'd appreciate an explanation of your viewpoint.

This is not from a press release or news article, it's from the actual check that got deposited monthly.

Only in one direction. If that rent, based on supply and demand, does not cover all of the owner's costs (+profit) then that rental property simply disappears off the market. No owner is going to rent out at a loss, so either the renter is paying for all expenses (+profit), or they get kicked out.

This is far from reality. A home is family and life to most people, nobody cares if it went up or down in value, a home is about our life.

Protecting retirees from getting kicked out of their lifelong homes is a wonderful thing.

But then allowing corporations to take advantage of that is insane.

Tell me you're not a retiree on social security (or know any) without telling me...

Social security gets adjusted up a very tiny percentage of actual inflation. Watching my elder parent go through this while managing their finances, I'm very aware.