The thread of conservative vs progressive cardinals and factions goes through the whole movie, but the ending is the most "agenda" part (although handled subtly).
The ending reveal doesn't even fit neatly into the hot-button American political issue you're associating it with. The film is clearly trying to make the viewer work out their view on the issue, and I think the film takes essentially no stance (unless you think that not taking a strong stance in one direction constitutes endorsement of a different direction).
Some might even say the film lacks courage, both by taking no stance on the issue and by presenting a scenario that only vaguely matches the hot-button American political issue.
You're not the only one that has had those kind of feelings, and I really relate to the movies you referenced.
Try to remember, AI is a tool, not a solution, and there will always be new problems. There's a strong case that unlike every other time people said that technology will kill all the jobs, this time it actually will. But a helpful framework comes from Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Solution (not the much more famous Innovator's Dilemma) - whereas a business has well defined needs that can be satisfied by improving products, customers (i.e. people) have ever evolving needs that will never be met. So while specific skills may lose value, there will always be a demand for the ability to recognize and provide value and solutions.
What makes a labor market for agents that recognize problems and provide solutions special or different from markets for other kinds of labor? If AIs get to a point where they dramatically outperform humans in other forms of labor, why not in this one?
Pessimistically but realistically, it doesn't matter if AI will perform better, it just matters if it's cheaper. A historical example is all the offshoring of mission critical code starting in the late 90s, early 00s. The code that came back was sub-par many of the times, particularly for the cheaper shops, but the executives got their bonus for saving money and bailed out. The new executives are now in charge of fixing the disaster of a codebase that they were left with.
I think history will rhyme with the offshoring trend but with AI this time.
I think some humans will be doing it well enough to keep themselves afloat the rest of our lifetime, and some will get fabulously rich building products as a one-man operation leveraging AIs. But there will be far more people failing at it. It will be like Youtube creators or Instagram influencers where there are few winners who take virtually all the rewards.
compared to the broadcast era aren't there way more winners -- with a smaller pieces of the pie -- nowadays?
it's still a Pareto distribution, I'm sure, but mega-stardom kinda died and was replaced by all these mini-stars, as far as I can tell. I'm not sure it supports your hypothesis.
I'm not really in touch with other genres, but I like to watch chess videos/streams on Youtube and Twitch. The vast, vast majority of views and revenue are captured by about ten people.
I like those people too, but I've also watched a lot of smaller acts, even some amateur players not much stronger than me. So I get those recommendations, and I see their view counts. They aren't making anything at all.
There are other people who have some followers, but even 50,000 followers would be a dream for most people doing it and they will make next to nothing from that. I'd guess there are at least 30x the number of strong, titled players in the 50k group as there are in the 1MM+ group. These are all people who were chess prodigies as kids, won every scholastic tournament in their state, took gap years or went to colleges that let them basically major in chess, travelled the world for tournaments, with awe-inspiring skills, and they are not making anywhere close enough to live on.
And the thing is, I think software might even be tougher in twenty years. Its hard to get people to change from a system they use to another thing, much harder than recommending a new face on Youtbue.
Maybe someday they will. But the current run of LLMs are fantastic at regurgitating and synthesizing existing knowledge, and getting better all the time, but not so good at coming up with new ideas. As long as you keep to the realm of what is known, they can seem incredibly intelligent, but as soon as you cross that boundary there's a clear change - often to just meaningless bullshit. So, I personally don't think we're going to be outsourcing idea generation to LLMs (or AI in general) anytime soon. Though to be fair, I'm only about 75% confident in that, and even so, it doesn't mean they won't be hugely transformative anyway.
The point was that the mention of the 2nd floor teller window was an inconsequential detail that was enough to identify the branch in question, and a gateway to show off his obsessiveness for researching minutiae. But definitely a "genre" article more than his other, more informative ones.
What's not clear to me is: why the confirmation that the NYMag writer's bank has a 2nd floor teller window is enough to mollify Patrick's intense skepticism that her $50k transaction happened like she asserts. If she was already going to torch her own reputation and journalism career to fabricate this scam story, why wouldn't she have the intrepidness to research what various Brooklyn banks look like? Or actually, why would a purported fabricator even bother to give that specific detail at all, which would make it easier for anyone (as Patrick attempted) to narrow down where the fakery did/didn't happen?
I mean the NYMag story was incredibly dumb and far-fetched, even compared to most scam stories. But the fact that she didn't write it pseudonymously, and gave the specific date that it happened, and also claimed to have called the police, that felt enough for me to give her the benefit of the doubt her story was more or less rooted in reality.
It wasn't; the key part of the piece is the revelation that $50K was not in fact a huge sum of money for someone in her socio-economic class. The thing that caught Patrick's eye originally, if I'm reading correctly, was that she didn't get the usual "come back in a day so we can get the funds together" message.
I suspect although I can't be sure that this is one reason why he's elliptical in this piece. The core piece of information is that she misrepresented her wealth in the original article. Personally if I'd just been scammed I would also want to minimize myself as a target, so I can't blame her, but it's the discrepancy that caught his eye.
> The core piece of information is that she misrepresented her wealth in the original article.
She does not misrepresent her wealth in her article. At no point does she claim to be scraping by. She states upfront that she has a gainfully-employed husband and a child and they live in Brooklyn, that she has $50k stowed away in an emergency savings account, and that she's been a financial columnist for the NYT and NYMag for around a decade.
Is it possible that such a New Yorker could have all those things while barely making in the middle-class? Sure, but an easy assumption in New York, and even Chicago, is that such a person is provided for means beyond their job income, e.g. maybe she or her husband worked at Goldman Sachs before their current careers, or come from rich families.
I too assumed that $50k was too big of a cash draw for any non-business account, but it didn't seem like a stretch to imagine that she fit the bank's profile of a wealthy customer (esp. at her young age). Patrick knows far more about the financial system than I do, so I have to assume his skepticism was founded in what he thought were widely applicable hard-coded rules and policy. I wish he would have spent a fraction of his word count telling us the assumptions/knowledge about bank rules that he had been misinformed on. Because this year-long multi-thousand dollar fraud investigation of his couldn't have just been because he didn't imagine a NYMag financial columnist might be wealthy?
She does not misrepresent her wealth in her article. At no point does she claim to be scraping by.
A direct quote:
> Initially, I was afraid that I wouldn’t be able to afford my taxes this year, but then my accountant told me I could write off losses due to theft. So from a financial standpoint, I’ll survive, as long as I don’t have another emergency — a real one — anytime soon.
I quote several more bits from the piece verbatim.
And how is that a misrepresentation? How people feel about their own financial situations and risk exposure is very famously and firmly in the realm of "that's just your opinion". There's no clear or correct interpretation of what "from a financial standpoint, I'll survive, as long as I don't have another emergency", unless you know her personally and know what she considers to be an "emergency".
A much better signal is that when she reflects on how the stolen $50k could have been used, she imagines: "I could have paid for over a year’s worth of child care up front. I could have put it toward the master’s degree I’ve always wanted. I could have housed multiple families for months." Sure, just because she didn't say "I could have paid off my mortgage/student/car loans" doesn't mean she doesn't have those. But it's a far stretch to assert that her written viewpoint sounds like a typical middle-class/upper-middle-class American, nevermind definitively excludes her from being rich (or at least belonging to one of the hundreds of thousands of millionaire households in New York).
> Sure, but an easy assumption in New York, and even Chicago, is that such a person is provided for means beyond their job income
Probably the biggest giveaway in the article was the $50,000 inheritance from a grandparent. When my grandparents died, they left the grandchildren a small amount ($500 each, IIRC), and the vast majority to their direct children. This seems standard to me, and if the ratios hold then she presumably stands to inherit far, far more in the future.
I find it hard to fault anyone for assuming people are like themselves in most ways. But maybe don't follow his twitter hot takes. Or twitter in general?
> The core piece of information is that she misrepresented her wealth in the original article
From the article:
> When recounted these same statements, my friend Byrne Hobart, who has actually lived among this social milieu before, laughed knowingly and said “Ah, family money.”
It wasn't a misrepresentation; it was just vague, and the author read it wrong.
Patrick's audience (for BAM especially) is 1) people who enjoy or are professionally interested in nitty gritty details of financial regulation, and 2) people who enjoy Patrick's personality and writing style. It's ok to not belong to either group.
And the point of the article is basically: Patrick can get obsessive about details, and here is an example of how that plays out in real life.
It's not word-count or details that I'm averse to, but purposeless word count. Patrick spends a huge amount of words alluding to why he thinks The Cut's story is total horseshit — and let's be clear, it was a comically bewildering story by any standards. But all of those details are pointless when the story abruptly concludes with "Well, she said it to the police so I guess it's likely not bullshit". If anything, I wanted more words of reflection by Patrick, explaining what made him so willing to bet an extravagant amount of time and money in investigating something so trivially affirmed? AFAICT, his skepticism starts from the assertion of "Banks just don't let an average person take out $50k in cash in a day". How is that assertion addressed by the fact that the victim gave the police a brief report of events? As if it wasn't possible that someone who fabricated this massive story in NYMag wouldn't also fib to the police?
1. The discovery of new facts that explain why a bank that won't let the average person take out $50k in cash would still plausibly let this person take out $50k in cash
2. The story having (verifiable) details that would be unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it, unless they went through a massive effort to fabricate a perfect story. While it is possible to fabricate a story that would pass thorough scrutiny, most fabricated stories would show inconsistencies or otherwise fall apart if looked at this closely.
Here's the graf that most resembles a thesis statement:
> Then, I read the article, with a particular attention to the paragraph quoted above. I felt that several elements of this paragraph were inconsistent with the standard practice of banking.
The quoted paragraph that he refers to:
> When I reached the bank, I told the guard I needed to make a large cash withdrawal and she sent me upstairs. Michael [a member of the scamming team] was on speakerphone in my pocket. I asked the teller for $50,000. The woman behind the thick glass window raised her eyebrows, disappeared into a back room, came back with a large metal box of $100 bills, and counted them out with a machine. Then she pushed the stacks of bills through the slot along with a sheet of paper warning me against scams. I thanked her and left.
How does "The Bank of America branch that she named by address (in the police report) has a second-floor teller window" a meaningful verification of the NYMag's problematic paragraph? Unless you think that literally the main problem with the NYMag graf is the first sentence: I told the guard I needed to make a large cash withdrawal and she sent me upstairs
> The story having (verifiable) details that would be unlikely to exist if someone fabricated it
She knows there's a Bank of America on 1 Flatbush Avenue. You really think that someone who spent months writing and working with an editor to publish a massive fabrication is too lazy to actually visit that actual location, especially when it's a short subway stop from her home?
It's might actually be easier to win the economics battle by chipping away at restrictions on taller buildings. The builders in my area are copy/pasting a 3-flat design all over the place but it requires bargain-basement land prices (literally building on former toxic waste dumps) or money from the township because 3-flats make you have to build wide.
The muni I live in is very constrained (we're just 4 square miles, right on the border of the west side of Chicago) and our land is overwhelmingly SFZ, so most of the ballgame is getting SFZ lots opened up. The emerging consensus is towards "missing middle" housing, which is 2-40 units (but really, a medium term sweet spot in the teens), where you're talking about buildings spanning multiple lots.
That very little can economically be built on existing SFZ lots even with relaxed zoning is actually a feature, not a bug, for getting this done. People want change to be slow. At least to begin with, it's better strategically if it takes a couple years and gradual tweaking to make lots of building happen.
Rather than the complete elimination of single family (and by extension even larger lots) I feel like it ought to follow something resembling an iterated 80/20 rule out to huge rural lots at the far end. Notice that this would imply a plurality of the land being zoned for the highest density at any given time.
The thing that really kills density in most cases is the height restrictions. A lot of the upzoning in my area has resulted in ugly, wall-to-wall low-single-digit floor count buildings with near zero setback. It's better than single family but it isn't particularly dense and it's a huge step backwards aesthetically.
You'd hope that Oak Park, Evanston, Wilmette, and then Berwyn and Schaumburg could get this done, and then your next step would be either Chicago (tough because of aldermanic structure) or statewide, the way California did. Either way: you start in one municipality and work from there.
It helps that zoning matters more in Oak Park (and Evanston) than almost anywhere else in Chicagoland.
There is no way you get Wilmette to change zoning. They've fought with Small Cheval about the size of their sign for like 9 months. I doubt you'd get any village in the NT district to rezone - the Optima project was pulling teeth, everyone is worried about overcrowding NT, which as a single HS is pretty packed now
The whole project is going to take many years. Even if we fix Oak Park zoning in the coming year, it'll still be years before anything significant gets built, and years past that for us to serve as a test case.
Yep. Historically both of these places basically exist to concentrate the interests of the upper middle class and to reinforce segregation. They're both basically Chicago but with a better funded school system (because lawyers and doctors get to funnel all their property taxes into the school down the street from them), which makes them highly desirable.
It is currently being force "low-densified" by restrictions. If those restrictions and force were removed, it would densify itself due to market demands. It would be much, much less forced than the current paradigm.
