Christobootswiththepher

joined 1 year ago
[–] Christobootswiththepher@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Internet and access to servers is the first thing that govts turn off when they get uppity.

Seems like a fatal risk to have online only services.

Yea breed till extinction is natures way. Those reindeer on the island off Kamchatka.

I think the biological imperative to stop is the total doom it creates us all if left unchecked. Pretty strong motivation. I think the game musical chairs is closer to reality than symbiotic relationship, conflict being inherent in survival.

Community created cooperative protection.

So the people unwilling to let go of glutinous life styles is the real issue? Person living in the woods with a simple lifestyle ok but Taylor and her plane no good?

I like you critical thinking going on. To me it is simply the number of people, pure and simple. If there was 10 people on the planet it would be a lot harder for any long term consequences to show up. Unfortunately all the modern systems support an ever expanding population base (for stupid reasons imho). We need a system that doesn't have this feature. Despite capitalism's benefits, it's tied to exhaustion. Problem I see, how could the breeding ever be overcome within the system? I've got nothing. I'm sure natural processes will take the system off line if it doesn't line up with some fundamentals.

[–] Christobootswiththepher@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great points. I can't see number 1 bring over the boomers anytime soon. I concur with point number two. But I will be long in the tooth by the time this comes to fruition. Moving to a country that has sensible housing policies side steps the whole issue for me. I understand this isn't an option for everyone, and feel for them being trapped somewhat.

[–] Christobootswiththepher@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

From an ABC article today.

"Independent property economist Cameron Kusher argues there needs to be a "paradigm shift" in the way Australians view housing, "away from one in which you build wealth from buying and holding residential property to one in which it is seen as essential shelter".

[–] Christobootswiththepher@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Some salient input there, thanks. I read the white paper and thought it needs to be more widely known and talked about. I don't have any great ideas for how the medicine should be taken now. I think it should have been addressed a long time ago. Cats out of the bag now. Ive decided it's not my monkey, not my circus. I run a (R&D) business and my solution is to simply move to a country like Japan and side step a 30+ year death pledge.

It is interesting to see how different countries use housing to prop up their economies. It seems to be short term gain, long term pain policy or what I've heard to as car crash economics.

Other nations seem to be putting their efforts into advancing technology. I think that gives a short term pain but real long term gain.

"Increasing government debt is a transfer from future generations to current ones, exacerbating the intergenerational imbalance documented in this paper."

To me it mirrors the South Park episode where previous generations made a deal with Man bear pig (climate change) to help themselves, at the peril of future generations.

 

"Zoning and planning regulations that limit the supply of new housing increase the price of housing. For instance, Kendall and Tulip (2018) estimate the impact of zoning on housing prices and find that “as of 2016, zoning raised detached house prices 73 per cent above marginal costs in Sydney, 69 per cent in Melbourne, 42 per cent in Brisbane and 54 per cent in Perth”

From

https://crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/2025-04/Complete%20WP%20Varela%20Breunig%20Smith_2025%20compressed.pdf

An open secret. So, if we progressively change zoning, then a large part of the synthetic component evaporates? Apartments in NSW are a joke with over 53% needing remediation. So the planning laws don't work to create good housing. What are they really for?

[–] Christobootswiththepher@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow, awesome resources yo. I had a quick read and they are presented simply. But with such a large body of work! Way to go Western Australia.

Oh dang! Yellow, sir. I see what you did there, but in almond.

Absolutely.

The populaces awareness of inflation taxation is what drives part of the cryptocurrecy fever. People have grown impatient again at being fucked over by banking policies.

Join a protest.

Penny auctions anyone?

 

It seems a good time to remember, in amongst the rhetoric of election campaigns that all parties will keep house prices where they are.

The way back to affordability is 10-20 years of marginal house price growth, to enable housing to come into line with long term trends. Fluctuations that are radical pose radical problems for politics. So they opt for the sustained. This is what I think Australia's (and others) future housing comes down to the (continued) debasement of currency through broad (stealth) taxation.

What a game.

I suspect voting preferences will swing around the late 30s quite bad :-/

 

After reading the post about large language models and computation I clicked on a link to a wiki read on the subject. It was good, but technical to the point, again great. But I feel it needs a metaphorical or other version to get the concept across without the black and white math.

An ELI5 section to wiki would be good, no?

Disclaimer; said as a career scientist

view more: next ›