I know this is tongue in cheek, but writing functional code in an object oriented language, or even worse just taking a giant procedural trail of tears and spreading it across a few files like a roomba through a pile of dog doo is ... well.. a code smell at best.
I have a user prompt saved called clean code to make a pass through the changes and remove unused, DRY and refactor - literally the high points of uncle bob's Clean Code. It works shockingly well at taking AI code and making it somewhat maintainable.
>I know this is tongue in cheek, but writing functional code in an object oriented language, or even worse just taking a giant procedural trail of tears and spreading it across a few files like a roomba through a pile of dog doo is ... well.. a code smell at best.
After forcing myself over years to apply various OOP principles using multiple languages, I believe OOP has truly been the worst thing to happen to me personally as engineer. Now, I believe what you actually see is just an "aesthetics" issue, moreover it's purely learned aesthetics.
I have the same in my area, but instead the lights are synchronized to slow traffic as much as possible. They literally coordinate to make you stop at as many lights as possible and grid lock at rush hour so the highway doesn't get flooded.
I walk my kids to school, but when I do drive the 1.1 miles there are no less than 12 stoplights/stop signs.
Now you're relying on Jimmy "Buck" Rawgers born and raised in Billton county working at the DOT setting the speed limits and the traffic light cadence.
How many roads are 35 when they should be 50 simply because some local yokel asshole made a stink at city counsel 10 years ago and now it's impossible to change?
I had a coworker legitimately put wait statements in his code so that later he could remove them and report the optimizations. I approved a few of them
If insurability becomes a crisis, I'd expect it to reduce housing availability and raise prices for competing (insurable) properties.
Of course it wouldn't happen in isolation, so there are other massive forces to consider.
Maybe wide swathes of formerly-occupied (but now uninsurable) land would sell cheaply enough that middle-income people could build inexpensive semi-disposable vacation cottages, like the old days.
GP's assertion of population collapse in five years is a bit extreme for me!
>> GP's assertion of population collapse in five years is a bit extreme for me!
Check the population pyramid for the US. the baby boomers are moving into the top part (I call the grinder) where they will die out over the next 20 years. At the bottom, we have 20 years of slowly decreasing births, so the bottom AND top are shrinking. Combine that with current policies stopping immigration and I don't know how the US population can be doing anything but decreasing. College admissions people are talking about the cliff (an exaggeration for sure) in enrolment this year and for years to come. People are also getting married closer to 30, and having much less than 2 children per couple.
I'd expect to see a surge in self insurance. These areas are so valuable already in a lot of cases where rich people are content to pay six figure property tax bills. Especially with cost of construction being a fraction of that property's value.
It could be as simple as that or something with more structure as well. It won't be a 12 million loss because you own the land already. You are just paying for construction which is a fraction of that value.
As the report points out, institutional investors purchase only 3% of homes nationwide (but much higher in some cities). Regular smaller investors likely buy more homes than the institutional ones.
> institutional investors purchase only 3% of homes nationwide (but much higher in some cities).
This is crucial. People are in cities - in the day and age of corporate consolidation, less and less jobs are available, and they are increasingly in-office, and increasingly in only a select few metro areas.
Nobody would give a damn if a glut of housing was built in the middle of South Dakota or Maine or Wyoming. That's because there's very little to no jobs growth in those regions.
Well, there are pitfalls, and it's easy for an "anonymization" scheme to leak more detail than it would seem at first glance. But I agree that motive plays a big role. If your purpose in sharing data is to make money off it, then you'll be trying to share as much data as possible, and will try to convince yourself that your anonymization is "good enough".
If you're sharing data for a specific purpose, then it's much easier to limit the data sharing to suit that purpose: omit irrelevant data, aggregate where possible, and anonymize individual data points only when you actually need to share that level of detail.
This is exactly right and the reason that Costco shoppers are un-intuitively among the richest groups in the country (average $125,000 household income).
Costco is great for wealthy families, less so for less wealthy. People living in small apartments have no place to put 36 rolls of paper towels and 12 jars of pasta sauce.
Having a large home is a prerequisite for shopping at Costco.
We live in an apartment but use Costco to stock our freezer with meat and seafood. We also use it for gas, cat litter, eggs, and cheese (lasts a long time). Basically for perishables that only need to be stored so long.
I have a user prompt saved called clean code to make a pass through the changes and remove unused, DRY and refactor - literally the high points of uncle bob's Clean Code. It works shockingly well at taking AI code and making it somewhat maintainable.
reply