it works in places that are already gentrified, like Manhattan or the City (of London). No one is suggesting congestion pricing in Queens.

“Gentrified”, no. “Romanticized” to the extreme, yes

> The point of that second link above is that any amount of housing, at any price point, lowers cost of housing for everyone, especially lower-income participants in the market.

Not unless you force developers to build even when it's unprofitable (or not profitable enough)

Right. The solution (or part of the solution, there is no "all-around solution") is not only building more housing, but having a social structure that allows people to earn enough to afford the housing. But our society isn't set up that way. Employers want to pay as little as possible -- or feel they have to pay as little as possible to stay competitive and above water. If you're not earning a living wage, then it doesn't matter how much housing is being built.

And to say "just build so much that supply > demand and prices will drop" doesn't work, because private developers won't build housing they can't make a tidy profit on.

> If those jobs don't pay enough to afford to live in LA, that means there's a structural problem that needs to be solved, one way or another

This is one of the key underlying problems that doesn't get enough attention. And the current Admin's policies are only making it worse.

> 2) rarely is it the actual cost of the home that’s the problem

I disagree. With some exceptions, most people would rather be sheltered if they could just make rent, but they can't. Often it is mental health or substance abuse, other times it's rising rents and jobs that just don't pay enough even to get a room in a basic shared flat. Yes, housing may be cheap _somewhere_ but it may not be a place where people are able to actually live and support themselves.

While not directly about homelessness, I found Evicted (Matthew Desmond) a very eye opening book (at least for me, who only relatively recently moved to the US despite being a US citizen). There are so many people who are right on the edge that all it takes is one bad illness or other mishap to fall off, and once you're off it's really hard to get back on and stay on.

AFAIK they didn't break any of the lottery rules, and anyone could theoretically have done the same. So no, it wasn't unfair any more than it's unfair that someone else has millions of dollars to buy lottery tickets with and I don't.

The problem lies with the TX lottery commission who draw up and enforce the rules.

Where is Ti getting $60B from?

I have a Framework 12 laptop running Ubuntu. I use it mostly for dev (so I don't care about gaming, Windows, etc.). I mostly like it, but I have two gripes:

- the touchpad is atrocious

- battery life is mediocre

How come you already have a Framework 12?

My bad! - meant to write 13

Thanks for the reply. I hope they listen to feedback and improve the touchpad and the battery.

While I haven't run into this egregious of an offense, I have had LLMs either "fix" the unit test to pass with buggy code, or, conversely, "fix" the code to so that the test passes but now the code does something different than it should (because the unit test was wrong to start with).

I've done freelance translation in two different language pairs, for 20 years (mostly as a side thing). A few thoughts on this:

- Google Translate has always been garbage for professional translation work, which is why human translators have been needed.

- LLMs can write in a way that sounds native (at least in English), which is something that ML translation software was bad at. They can also understand context to some degree and can adopt tones. This is a huge leap forward that makes it suitable for a large majority of translation work _between common language pairs_ (Hindi to Thai is probably safe).

- The vast majority of translation work is commercial in nature, and most cases, "decent" is good enough. Cost is prioritized over occasional mistakes. Prices have been falling for years already. Many agencies now pay peanuts because they expect you to use AI and "just" do some light proofreading. Except that often the "light proofreading" was actually "heavy editing" that often took more work than translating from scratch. It's not worth it.

- Do not lump translators and interpreters together when discussing this subject. Interpreters aren't going away and their job is much more difficult to replace with AI (for a variety of reasons). What they do is very different than translators (some do both of course).

- There are some exceptions to "decent is good enough", where: 1) context/localization is critical (a major advertising campaign), 2) accuracy of the message is critical (a government pronouncement), 3) linguistic excellence is critical (a novel). This may be the most visible parts, but also a very small fraction of the overall market.

My conclusion is that translators won't disappear altogether but their ranks will shrink considerably.