I moved from west Los Angeles (Mar Vista near Culver City) to Dublin and my rent is significantly higher in Dublin (renting a new-ish build 2br 800 sq ft near the Canal, city center). Dublin's a lovely city -- but it's a lovely city of half a million people in a country of 5 million, less than half greater Los Angeles county. London, Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles are major cities of the world. Dublin is a regional city. It's absurd. I never thought I'd live somewhere _more_ expensive than LA.
The "metro area" is 1,270,000 so a lot more than the "city" count and I imagine if you added in the neighboring areas that are part of the commuter belt that would increase even more (e.g. Dublin county itself has 1.388 million not counting Meath, Kildare, Wicklow etc ).
Ireland is a lot like Washington State, in size and population, and the size profile of the cities.
(though Washington has more real wilderness, and Ireland has a lot more small farm rural, but Seattle and Dublin occupy very similar weights in the regions)
Washington state is the third most populous state west of the Mississippi (being beat by only Texas and California), and probably has more farmland than Ireland, though it depends on what you mean by small farm.
I think the biggest issue I have with the comparison is the density. Ireland is a relatively densely populated country. Rural land is very densely populated, there is no section of the country that isn't spoken for. This is because unlike large parts of the US, agricultural land is highly productive without irrigation.
This results in agricultural land being very expensive. In the US agricultural land can be expensive, but only because of it's water. Without water it's extremely cheap.
This land pressure results in land across the entire Country being expensive.
In the US, there is a lot of relatively empty/undeveloped land on which to build houses and cities. This should reduce the price of housing.
- in contrast to rural Ireland, urban Ireland is not very dense relative to other cities in Europe. Dublin has a height restriction on buildings (which may be being reconsidered) so there isn't much of the denser building that you get in cities like Paris (which has a lot of 5-6 story buildings which really ramp up the population density. Irish cities are instead rows of very tightly packed suburban homes - often terraced or semi-detached (sharing a side wall with a neighbor) with about 6-10 homes per acre.
I'm not following your analogy at all. Ireland is 32k square miles, Washington state is 72k square miles. Washington State has about 16% more people with about 2.25 times the land area.
It’s less the formality and more the hypermodern idioms that feel out of place (what’s the opposite of anachronistic?) in talking about a historical subject. Like, yes Mark Twain had the rizz and the Confedussies took the L but that’s probably not how I’d discuss it.
In this case? Anachronistic still. Anachronistic just means something like "belonging to a different time period," and it doesn't strictly imply earlier or later.
Unfortunately there seems to be a bipartisan political consensus against the most profitable and useful elements of the New Deal (WPA, TVA, REA, CWA) which would be almost mandatory to go whole hog on this kind of infrastructure proposal, and as we've learned over the last 40 years public-private partnerships are thin gruel as a replacement.
The US seems to have totally lost the ability to produce infrastructure at sane cost, which may be contributing to the decreased support for infrastructure projects.
Crucially, Turning Red was _not_ released in theatres in most countries due to COVID-19. It may or may not have been a money loser, but there's very little reason to believe executives think it's anything about the movie that made it that way.
Yes, Turning Red's low revenue was primarily a cause of the film not being in theatres, rather than the quality of its story.
I personally liked the story of Turning Red very much (though I'm biased to like it because it's set in Toronto), but more objectively, the film is a step above Strange World and Lightyear in terms of ratings.
Turning Red's ratings: 95% on the Tomatometer of Rotten Tomatoes (RT), 7.0/10 on IMDb, and 3.7/5 on Letterboxd
Lightyear's ratings: 74% on RT, 6.1/10 on IMDb, 3.0/5 on Letterboxd
Strange World's ratings: 72% on RT, 5.6/10 on IMDb, 3.0/5 on Letterboxd
I'm neither Canadian nor an immigrant, but I absolutely loved Turning Red. I felt it was 10x better than Encanto. But the latter has catchy meme-worthy tunes, so here we are.
According to Wikipedia it did pretty well: ...the most-ever for a Disney+ original title... the most watched program across all streaming services in the U.S. ... continued to hold the top position ... the second most-watched movie on U.S. streaming services in 2022.
I don't know how it could've cost $175MM, but it's a quality movie and deserves kudos for giving us some diversity in protagonists.
My Dad died before my kids were born. When he got cancer, he recorded himself reading "The Night Before Christmas", which is about enough audio for the high quality version of this technology. Is it ghoulish on my part to want to hear his voice again or for my kids to hear it? Maybe. Do I really care what you think (or really what _I_ think) about that? No.
Sorry to hear. Hope your kids enjoy his recording.
But yes, it would be weird to generate more stuff spoken by your father by using this technology. And beyond that, what's even the point? It's not your dad.
People who would tell you not to use your recorded audio to create more simulations of your father speaking are the same sort of folks with strong opinions about what other people do in the bedroom.
I happen to be someone who believes that it's wonderful your dad left you with this artifact. It was a touching sentiment then, and now it can serve his obvious purpose many times over.
He didn't record himself as a side-effect of disease, or because he loved that particular story in the sound of his voice. He wanted people in the future to be able to hear what he sounded like!
Given that he could not have foreseen voice cloning (and therefore not explicitly asked for it) I cannot think of a more obvious example of someone wanting their voice to survive them.
I wish more folks would record The Night Before Christmas.
You shouldn’t care what I think. You shouldn’t care what anyone here thinks. Creating fake memories is not something I’d ever consider doing but that’s just me.
A little crazy that more wasn't done towards this end in summer 2020 when there was massive amounts of cash available to the hospital system, comparatively very low occupancy such that retrofitting would be less disruptive (lower respiratory disease burden generally inclusive both of COVID and non-COVID due to lockdown measures), and the social will to solve it wasn't politicized in the US or attached to other hot button stuff. I don't really know enough about HVAC to know what it would take to improve the modal old hospital's ventilation so maybe this is an orders of magnitude tougher problem than I expect or something.
Hospitals already won't do incredibly simple and effective things like copper plating handrails and doorknobs because it costs literally anything and they aren't required to.
I did a CS degree 20 years ago. Databases, concurrent programming, and network programming were all 4th year electives (I took network, AI, and image processing personally). But something not being included in a core curriculum doesn't mean someone can't learn it.
My curriculum was: Year 1: Intro Comp Sci / Year 2: 2 courses in Logic, 2 courses in data structures and algorithms / Year 3: 2 courses in processor design, 1 course in finite state automata, 1 course in parsers / Year 4: a course in ethics, a course in team programming (which covered UML and version control), and two electives.
I believe a major was 14 courses so I'm missing one, or it may have been it was three electives. I didn't take databases because I was already a paid sysadmin before I started college and mostly at the time database courses were just ten tedious weeks of normalization crap.
Also, treat your interns better. The reason to hire interns is because you plan to devote some of your resources to help them in their professional development. Stop asking what you can get out of your interns and start asking how you can best give something to them.
I once hired two interns from an old startup of mine in 2017 who were on the verge of quitting CS because they found out that maybe it is not the course for them. I told them that CS teaches fundamentals, but real life programming work teaches you how to write good code.
I got them to work on an internal tool using Node and Vue.js for 2 months. They were good programmers overall.
After their internship ended and completed the requirements for college, I received a personal letter from them thanking me for the knowledge and support they got from me. Apparently, I lost the letter after closing our startup after a year. But I vividly remember the gratitude I got from them.
What I learn is that internship is a two-way street. You learn how to communicate with them effectively at their level and they learn from you in writing software.
So, basically nothing about this tracks. Arnold would have been best characterized as a right-liberal during his time in politics. He was a moderate Republican in a state that was already pretty left-leaning. Since then he's drifted a little left (focusing on criticizing Trump mostly on compassionate grounds, focusing on civic engagement, and focusing on environmental issues). I think he'd best be characterized in the global scale as something between a right-liberal and a left-liberal. The Atlantic has basically Washington Consensus politics, a little left on some issues, but basically market liberals. Maybe a more simplified way to put this: The Atlantic likely would have been closer to Clinton in the 2016 primaries than Sanders, and closer to Biden in 2020 primaries than Warren than Sanders. So it's true that they don't have identical politics, but it's not true that they're really at odds.
His life story is really inspirational, but his terms as governor sort of exposed he didn't have a great aptitude for elected politics. After he got whooped in his 2nd year midterm on the bond issues, he acknowledged that to be an effective governor he needed to get better at working with the legislature and making the case for his priorities. Then he served another six years with no major accomplishments; he never really felt like he was in the driver's seat after that midterm. He remained personally likeable, and it's true that Democrats put up only a token challenge to his second term election, but this maybe emphasizes the point: he was not in control of the issue agenda in the state, he wasn't a real threat. He didn't do a terrible job as governor, but he did do a very passive job. And in his second term when he did try to engage with the legislature, it didn't work, and mostly (as the article notes) his popularity eroded significantly. After leaving politics, he didn't really stay engaged in the party or build connections in the state, and indeed it's telling that Republicans have had a terrible record in California since.
He's never sought any federal office, and I have no idea why the article accepts the false premise that after being Governor, the only other option is to run for President. He could have, of course, ran as a Senator (Governors often do this!), ran for the house (Governors occasionally do this!), gotten involved in executive politics by taking any of a number of federal appointments that could have been open for him (or made a case for a cabinet position). He didn't. The article suggests he wouldn't mind being Secretary of State. If that were true, we'd expect him to have done... uh... literally anything connected to diplomacy in the 15 years since he left elected office?
And frankly a lot of his public engagement with politics over the last few years has been pretty surface level. He's talking directly to the public, mostly in (yes, well articulated) platitudes. I agree with him on all these issues and I'm glad he's using his bully pulpit to advocate for good things that I agree with. But mostly that's where the engagement stops. He's not day-to-day running civil society organizations, he's not building connections with politicians, he's just sort of weighing in in the same way a lot of people do on issues he cares about.
I do think there's a lot to admire in Arnold (his life story is amazing). and I don't have any hostility towards him. He's funny, he's using his platform for good, he's a sports hero, he's a unique and fun actor. I don't think he's great at doing electoral politics.
I think the Atlantic is just assuming that since Reagan was an actor, who became California governor and then went on to the White House, so naturally, Arnold who follow this template.
Also, the California governorship is not an effective model since the Legislature holds so much power and is so dysfunctional.
(hopefully by focusing on two current Republican governors and praising one and hopefully being even handed, this doesn’t turn into a political back and forth. I’m not really interested in getting into Democrat vs Republican whataboutism)
I can never see myself personally vote Republican because even the Republican politicians that I don’t have any personal antipathy toward (ie what are now called “RINOs”) still enable the ones that have cultural policies I disagree with.
That being said, I have to admit that I think some of the best governors are the Republican governors that “don’t do anything” besides act like a CEO and are more concerned with governing, bringing business into a state, balancing the budget, and don’t get into the culture wars.
I lived in GA until last year and I can say that every governor both Republican and Democrat have fit that mold since I actually started paying attention in the mid 90s.
The current Republican governor Kemp fits into that mold. He didn’t kowtow to the “election is stolen” crap. He didn’t get into the mud with Trump during his election or primary and he even signed a law making citizens arrest illegal after what happens with Ahmaud Arbery.
He even fought to bring in the “Soros controlled clean energy” Rivian manufacturing plant.
Now I live in Orlando, and Desantis is the exact opposite of Kemp.
Yeah I have never followed him much at all but my gut feeling about him pretty much agrees with you. Still no one is perfect and I think he was a better than average politician among his peers. I think one of his problems was that in an era of tea party and trumpism taking over the republican party he had no hope there. His best bet in politics was probably running for Senate but I suspect he was more ambitious than that.
When you buy a stock, you pay money and someone else gives you a stock. Once you have it, you can hold it for as long as you want. Its value can go up or down. When you sell, you get money, which might be less or more than what you paid. If the value goes to zero, you can no longer sell and you will never get any money.
When you short a stock, you are basically selling a stock you don't have. Thus you get money and owe someone else a stock (in practice what happens is someone else unknowingly gives you a stock for free and then you sell it, and they get an IOU for a share of the stock later; but let's not worry too much about the mechanics). Once you have this IOU, you can hold on. The value of the liability associated with the IOU can go up or down. If it goes down, then when you discharge that liability by buying the share you owe, you will pay less than you were paid for the short, thus making a profit. If it goes up, then you will pay more and thus lose money. One risk with a short is that your liability is unbounded. In a traditional stock purchase, the worst that can happen is that you lose the money you put in. In a short sale, you can lose many multiples of the money you put in if the stock does very well. Under a few circumstances, the IOU can be called, forcing you to prove that you have the money to buy a share; for instance, if you were to short $1,000,000 in shares and the share price triples, you owe $3,000,000.
To summarize: when you buy a stock, it's because you think it will be worth more later (again, let's set aside dividends and other things). When you short a stock, it's because you think it will be worth less later.
The reason shorting is permitted is because in general, there is a belief (mistaken or not), that additional liquidity -- more trading -- benefits everyone involved in a market by reducing the spread between prices for buying and selling; additionally, shorting makes it possible to hedge your exposure to a sector (i.e. to trade off some upside in a sector with some corresponding downside and vice versa).
Thanks for the explanation! What happens when someone shorts a stock and then the company goes under? In this case of SVB, you short a stock, company gets taken by FDIC, trading is halted and I'm assuming the company will be sold/dissolved? So what happens with the shorts?
> (in practice what happens is someone else unknowingly gives you a stock for free and then you sell it, and they get an IOU for a share of the stock later; but let's not worry too much about the mechanics)
That's a mis-characterisation. What makes you think the counterparty lends you the stock unknowingly?
> The reason shorting is permitted is because [...]
You forgot the most important reasons:
First, why forbid voluntary transactions between people? Stock lending is an activity between consenting adults.
Second, short selling is a way to finance muckracking and investigations. Short sellers are the only people with an incentive to burst manias. They are an important mechanism for the market to regulate itself.
Eg 'in practice what happens is someone else unknowingly gives you a stock for free':
Someone else willingly and _knowingly_ loans you the stock, and _charges_ borrow costs. As a private investor you can participate in stock lending, just check with your broker. Index funds are often more than happy to loan out their shares, partially because it's one of the few ways they have to make extra money.
(Also maybe partially because it helps offset their impact on the market. If a new company makes it into the S&P 500 and all of a sudden index funds have to own 20% of that company, you might expect prices to go up in _anticipation_, ie before the index fund can buy. But if at the same time the same 20% of that company's stock becomes available for loan and thus short-selling, that might help counteract this move.)
They do? Every single academic in the country supports open-access, lobbies their institutions to pay for the costs of open access. Every researcher will send you a copy of their article if you are paywalled and want to read it. And you, like all academics, know about Sci-Hub, so you should do what most academics do and use Sci-Hub to pirate the article to begin with.
