Still early but from my first few interactions with Fable on high in both settings, it feels like it might finally dethrone 4.6 for me, but time will tell.

Hoping it doesn't get nerfed and eventually comes back to the subscriptions.

I'm no AI skeptic (and am aware the above does not seem to apply to GPT4), but the general point stands - finding these limitations is an interesting endeavor, and when they're particularly severe or unexpected, newsworthy.

>Survivor bias. If nothing existed [1], we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

Survivor bias leading to the question is not the reason anything exists, in the same way you being alive to ask this question is not the reason you're alive. In both cases existence is simply a pre-requisite to asking the question, but it does not answer it.

>It's like asking what is P(A|A).

No, that is misinterpretation of the question. The question is not "What is the probability that anything exists, given that anything exists?", it's asking "Why does anything exist?", as per the title.

>The question "Why do I not exist" has never and will never be (seriously) asked.

Haven't given much thought to this, and at face value, yes, you're right. But "seriously" is ambiguous and there are some interesting questions here regarding the possibility of an evil demon like entity, or, more interestingly, GPT-3 posing this question.

While it's not exclusively focused on the economics side of things, one recommendation I would have is to read "The World: A Brief Introduction", by Richard Haass.

On the Financial side of things, the Financial Times is probably the best publication for what you're after.

On YouTube I'd recommend tldr news for current news and Caspian Report for geopolitics.

The lazy thing is a tired, prejudiced, stereotype. Unless you also consider countries like Japan who work similar (but less) annual hours to be 'lazy'.[0]

[0]https://data.oecd.org/chart/6wmc

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27317623

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_annual_labor...

I doubt that as N increases the "network" effects are strong enough to overcome the chance that someone that will help, regardless of what the effect of "N-1" bystanders is, shows up.

I think it's just an unintended consequence of a race to the bottom in cheap, disposable manufacturing. Even then, I'm unsure if on an aggregate level the progress in materials engineering and overall manufacturing processes does not eventually offset this focus on cheapness, resulting on better value than the more expensive alternative.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20468957

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

This indicates to me that these foreign buyers are not necessarily institutional investors or companies, but foreign citizens, so the segment of the market they're in is probably not the multi-million property segment, but the more "standard" residential properties market a normal US resident would be in. The article does somewhat confirm this:

>"Foreign buyers include those living in the U.S. and overseas, but the majority (60%) were recent immigrants and foreigners who live in the U.S. for work, school or other reasons."

If you also take into account that there is an effect of the purchases made by these buyers on the "median price for all buyers" cited above (and so the real difference in median prices between foreign/domestic buyers is higher than what is suggested by those figures), I think the effect is somewhat diminished (as this pushes them into a more "upscale" market).

Even with the above, I still think it's relatively safe to assume this will have a downwards impact on US residential prices, at least in these states (but I'd need precise figures as to what share of homebuyers are foreign).

*edited the last paragraphs to correct something I had gotten mixed-up on

I find the measure exactly the wrong type of regulation, the one that hurts a large segment of society to protect a small group (which had already benefited from a decades-long state imposed monopoly and became stagnant and comformist as a result).

As a small disclaimer, I do admit I have a bias against cab-drivers in general, but I do not think it clouds my judgement in this case.

It is a huge loss if you look at it from a societal welfare point of view.