At the moment GrapheneOS is better for more people. It's secure, reliable and polished. But in the long run the continued development of Linux phones and getting away from the current duopoly is definitely a good thing.
I'm using GrapheneOS now, and will switch to a Linux phone when the basics are nailed down and the price is reasonable.
> it would be bad to have a patch work of laws around AI
Why would that be bad? And for who?
Wouldn't it be better to have a variety of laws around something new, and figure out over time what is optimal? Wouldn't this be better than having one set of laws that can be more easily compromised via regulatory capture? Why the common assumption that bigger and more uniform is better? Is that to encourage bigger companies and bigger profits? Has that been a good thing?
Because if you want to sell an AI product you now need to hire an army of lawyers to do the state-by-state compliance. This dramatically increases the costs and slows down critical innovation. Another common argument is that any regulation will allow China to 'win the AI race' but I don't entirely agree with that premise - it's not a 'race' and if China 'wins' it'll be because they largely use their debt to finance effective high ROI industrial policy rather than mega tax breaks.
Reagan cut regulation, and manufacturing still left, quick as ever.
I assume that is due to larger trends. Population growth has slowed considerably and there's more competition than ever. Worldwide fertility rates have dropped from 4.7 to 2.3 in the last 75 years, and in that time the U.S. share of world GDP dropped from about 50% to 25%.
My two cents: We may be already be in uncharted economic territory with regards to shrinking workforces, retirees, pollution, etc. How much of our economy is dependent on growth? We may find out. Places like Japan, Korea and Europe are leading the way. Ponzi schemes won't work forever. The world is getting smaller and older. And evening out. There's less room for arbitrage. Innovation is coming from all directions. Technology can still increase productivity. But it could also put masses of people out of work, leaving not enough demand for the latest and greatest. That, and a pie that is no longer growing, could cause a lot of social friction.
The Japanese deal with this by zoning policies being set at a national level. Localities pretty much can decide what part of town the smelly/industrial businesses go, and the rest scales based on population.
The locality will plan where their high-rise/commercial district is, houses on side-streets are can all be triplexes with an option for a low-impact business as in the article, and secondary streets have dedicated businesses.
As an area's population grows the federal zoning allows that bigger buildings can be built - small apartment buildings instead of houses, etc. The locals can't pull-up the ladder behind them and say "no new houses", locking out young people and renters and transplants.
I assume that the problem in the US is more regulatory capture than culture. Starbucks doesn't want you to be able to sell coffee to your neighbors. And your neighbors don't want more housing to be built, because it might affect their home values. I've seen how home owners adamantly oppose these things.
And for decades we've been left with most new housing being built by developers as cheap as possible - clear cutting some space on the outskirts of town and throwing together cookie cutter houses, car dependent and without much of anywhere nearby to socialize. It's a shame that in a country of 330+ million people there's not more variance.
The home businesses in Japan are supposed to be low-impact. It sounds like the airbnb you mentioned was not.
Japan has a set of regulations for airbnb rentals [0], depending on the size of the living space, whether it is owner-occupied, or is listed for more than half a year. There are sometimes inspections. Neighbors are notified and their complaints are taken seriously. Enforcement has been much more strict since 2018. Something like you mentioned would result in the airbnb license being revoked.
Airbnb spends a lot of money lobbying politicians in the US not to do such things, millions just at the federal level [0].
It's my understanding that houses in Japan are zoned to allow a percentage of the space to be used for a low-impact business, like the coffee shop in the article, and that bigger businesses are allowed on the bigger roads and in dedicated commercial/industrial districts. Also most houses can be converted to triplexes, too. This helps with density, encouraging more businesses nearby, less need for cars, better quality of social life, etc.
I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways.
I wondered if Japan does anything along those lines to avoid the problems you mentioned, but google ain't what it used to be and I wasn't able to find specifics.
- In the "Control of Building Use by Land Use Zones" you can see how even the most exclusive of zoning enables "Houses with other small scale function", Clinics, Schools or stores with very small footprints.
- Structures are restricted by the shape, shadow, and floor area.
- No mention of "single-family" housing.
A map (of Tokyo) overlaying the gradient of zoning from least to most permissive. You can see how the up-zoning follows the major roads:
https://tokyochizu.github.io/zoning.html
> I see what you mean about the potential for abuse - maybe Big Money would buy all the houses and run small businesses from them? But regulations or taxes could be used to dissuade them. Theoretically, anyways.
This isn't actually possible because owning a lot of houses is not a good business. That's why almost all landlords are small-time and not corporate. Houses are depreciating assets, so if you own more of them it's just more chances you'll have to pay for a roof replacement.
In particular in Japan, houses are worth less than nothing and you may have to pay to demolish yours if you sell it! (Less true than it used to be because construction quality has gotten a lot better.)
I am not here to nit pick about this post, but this made me think:
> owning a lot of houses is not a good business
Generally, I agree. What do you think makes commercial (office) buildings different? Probably 90% are owned by insurance companies, private equity, and pension funds. My guess: Scale matters. Also, maybe I am blinded by big cities, but second tier cities and below might have lots of small fry landlords that own one or two small commercial buildings
"Ownership of the nation’s rental housing stock is in transition. The approximately twenty million rental properties in the United States, and fifty million rental units within those properties, have been steadily shifting from individual to corporate hands".
Rent is profitable and the housing shortage is difficult to solve.
Missing the point. As long as an area has a shortage of housing rentals will likely remain a good investment.
That said I have to disagree that the housing shortage is difficult to solve, at least in a technical sense. It's due almost entirely to poor urban planning and infrastructure management. The problem is entirely political.
Then again, political issues can be some of the most difficult to make progress on so perhaps I agree after all.
I understand that to be one of the differences in approach to zoning, zones and buildings are considered on a spectrum of "impact". A high impact building like an industrial plant shouldn't be too close to low impact buildings like a single dwelling. But because it's a spectrum you get a natural mix of low, medium, and high impact buildings. A large residential complex might be considered medium impact and so can go next to a shopping complex that is also medium to high impact etc.
I would imagine that a great deal of Tokyo's megalopolis fits nicely in the medium impact zone, allowing housing, small scale manufacturing and commerce to mingle in an organic way.
Isn't intent usually decided by a jury/court, taking the actions of the alleged perp into account? Most law breakers won't just admit their guilt, and most legal systems don't let defendants unilaterally declare themselves innocent.
The word "conversate" is in the dictionary [1], labelled as "non-standard". That doesn't mean it's not a word. Most people would be able to easily infer its meaning.
I wouldn't agree that using an understandable word that's in the merriam-webster dictionary is being ignorant or lazy. Nor would I call something AI slop because of a single word, without otherwise engaging with the content.
I do genuinely wonder why some people can be so derailed by odd or unfamiliar words and grammar. Are they stressed? Not wanting to engage with a conversation? Trying to assert status or intellectual superiority? Being aggressive and domineering to assuage their self-worth? Perhaps they feel threatened by cultural change? I assume it has something to do with emotional regulation, given that I can't recall bumping into too many mature people who do such things.
Then again having an extra $2k in the bank might prove beneficial - perhaps preventing a personal catastrophe in a the near future. Or open doors that might make a significant difference down the road.
Risk is complicated, anything could happen. Not just doom and gloom. Individuals circumstances and appetite for risk versus reward varies.
Agreed, but, say, a 20yo who's never had anything go significantly wrong for them, might not even consider that something bad could happen.
In that case, the appetite for risk versus reward is only appetite for reward.
If risks pointed out, at least that's closer to an informed choice they're making, and maybe they'll do the same risky thing but now be more careful about mitigating risk as they do.
(Source: Person who's bet it all at least a few times, and about to do so again, but finding ways to avoid stupid decisions and mitigate risks along the way.)
The corporate tax rate was much higher during the 1950s and 1960s [0], which would seem to encourage companies to invest in research to grow their business instead of giving the government the money.
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but it seems like it could be a factor.
I'm using GrapheneOS now, and will switch to a Linux phone when the basics are nailed down and the price is reasonable.