What does it even mean that an ultrawealthy person would "leave" a city? One not unreasonable interpretation is that they would no longer have standing to promote their own interests there at the expense of the rest of the population. As a non-billionaire myself this sounds like a pretty good idea to me; what's good for billionaires is often not so good for everybody else.
If LLM-based tools were such a money printing machine with a big ROI, why would you ever want to downsize? Keep redirecting that excess human capacity into building bigger and better capabilities to generate more revenue. Hire cheap grads to do the work.
Except it seems like the opposite is happening. CS grads have high unemployment. Companies laying off staff.
The rhetoric doesn't seem to add up to the reality.
How do you define what is an essential good here? For electricity I would place most residential usage near the bottom in priority and definitely below a datacenter. People complaining about facing a tradeoff between setting the thermostat a couple degrees higher this summer or facing a higher power bill just doesn't get much sympathy from me.
Only possible thing I can think of is they won't be able to just pull down data that is "not aligned with the current administration". I'm not sure that would be an intended side effect, though.
The people who do that will be fired/ridiculed/charged and the people in power will pretend none of that happened and flood the 24h news cycle with something unrelated. We've already seen this happen, multiple times. It's not like a published stat from 2024 would have disappeared without bitcoin mining.
85,000 new H1B's. But there are multiples of that already in the US who already hold visas. So, the actual number is in the hundreds of thousands, enough to make a serious impact on supply of labor in the tech sector.
In this case, the relevant comparison is 85,000 net new H1B visas to the total of job postings, since the parent post seemed to be saying 80% of job postings are ghost postings from companies seeking H1B visas.
No. Neither of us said 80% are H1-B. We were agreeing that 80% aren't actually obtainable jobs, but neither of us attempted to determine what percent is from what cause.
> The majority of the time, it is a company looking to sponsor an H1B for a role
You're right that I shouldn't have said 80%, but this still implies almost half of all job postings are ghost jobs from companies trying to hire H1-B visa workers.
If the house is covered by an HOA, it's typically not optional.
And in some areas it's very difficult to find housing not part of an HOA. I think somebody mentioned elsewhere in this thread that all new housing in Phoenix requires an HOA.
"someone needs to assess and allocate costs which isn't always obvious"
In most places, this is called the city government.
Ultimately this feels like the "low tax area" myth is getting exposed. You still need to pay for all the same things your taxes would otherwise pay for, but for some reason it's different as long as it's not called a tax.
So shared facilities for a group of private individuals have to approved by and ongoing maintenance provided by the a government (as long as they feel like it) or they're not allowed to exist?
In the absence of an HOA, what you're describing as "shared facilities for a group of private individuals" would be commonly considered a private club. The difference is most private clubs that are not HOA's are not tied to owning specific property. For example, my sister belongs to a private pool club in their neighborhood. They pay membership dues to the club which provides operating revenue for the pool facilities, but it's not tied to any property ownership.
Some things like beaches/pools/golf clubs/etc. can generally be policed with tokens/keys and so forth. That is not generally true of all shared facilities in a neighborhood. And I'm not at all sure the local government should be responsible for anything that residents should care to share on a communal basis. Want a playground or dog park? That's the government's responsibility? Maybe. But now that's up to a broader section of voters.
>> Want a playground or dog park? That's the government's responsibility? Maybe
Yes, this is how it works pretty much everywhere else. Even my rural hometown with <1500 people has an elected park board that is responsible for parks, the swimming pool, tennis courts, summer rec programs, etc.
And the 7K person town where I live in, there are some conservation lands (no idea how maintenance splits up between town and conservation/commission and other volunteers), along with other conservation organizations. But dog parks, playgrounds, etc. just don't exist.
Ok, how about "Other people in our city refuse to raise taxes enough to maintain things to our standards, let's make a coalition of neighbors that all donate monthly to pay for additional upkeep for our neighborhood instead of each negotiating individually with different landscapers etc?"
It's popular to shit on HOAs, largely because Americans (of which I am one) are allergic to paying taxes and being told what to do, but if you call it a "Neighborhood co-op" all of a sudden it's not clear why it shouldn't be allowed. Whatever happened to freedom of association?
HOA's are ultimately run by the homeowners themselves. It's right there in the name. If the HOA is such a problem, elect different people to the board and change the rules.
You can't because they don't have elections... It's up to the documents to determine when elections can be held and often these HOA's in FL make it so that once elected, they don't hold elections again for 25 years.
Just long enough to milk the other homeowners for their own personal mortgages - paying off their own home, earn a cool $100k, and watch their property values go up.
An HOA that has $500/mo dues and 240 homes pulls $120,000/mo yet we have to cut our own grass, follow their paint scheme, follow their trash rules, keep our roofs new, front door clear, driveway clear, and packages out of sight.
EDIT for those downvoting, here's some cases for ya...
