When the story input parameters are too close or similar to an existing work, you'll receive output containing training artifacts. For example if the parameters for a story included topics such as a castle in Norway featuring a princess with powers. While the overall story will be its own thing, you'll definitely get names of characters and story elements from Disney's Frozen. The main ways to avoid this is to increase the top_p and temperature of the LLM requests, as well as add additional specifics to the story prompt. Are there any other techniques out there that would help in this?
Tesla produces vehicles in batches based on order statistics.
Vehicles are then matched with customers based on their selected options. Vehicles may be awaiting matching, or vehicles may be awaiting transport. International transport across the ocean happens when they can fill an entire ship to capacity.
Wouldn't it make more sense to charge by the hour? Or perhaps you live in a location with low housing prices. In either case, it seems to highlight the fact that the system is broken.
It blows my mind that the fees are percentage based. The amount of work required for an agent on a 100K house is very similar to that of a 2 Mill house. Presumably the seller agent wishes to get compensation for increasing the value of the house, but for both the seller and buyer agents, the number of deals done far outweighs slight incremental selling prices. In which case, both would prefer to settle on a lower price and move to the next deal. So frustrating. I wish the lawyers all the best!
Agreed 100%. Realtors do legitimate work, and deserve to be compensated for sure. But I think the pay is grossly disproportionate to the amount of value provided, and it's propped up by Realtor-sponsored laws and kickbacks. A lot of Realtors won't even deal with non-Realtor(tm) real-estate agents, which promotes their monopoly stranglehold on the real-estate market.
I'm not sure where I fall on what a real-estate agent's cut should be for selling a house. But for the buyer's agent, it's really over-valued IMO. And why should a buyer's agent in San Jose make 4x more than somebody in Des Moines for the exact same value-add?
When I bought my house, my Realtor found some good listings, arranged viewings, did the paperwork, and set everything up for me. All useful services, and worth paying for. But was it worth $12k for less than 40 hours of total work? I don't think so. That's a higher hourly rate than I'd be charged by a good doctor. And my house was a pretty cheap one by modern standards. Those are monopoly prices charged by people who know they've got you over a barrel.
Note they said "less than 40 hours", so that's "at least $300/hour". I feel like my buyers agent, who I really liked, worked more like 10-20 hours for $9K, for $450-$900/hour.
Don't get me wrong, I really liked her and she did a great job, but I'm not sure she did $9K great...
It’s at least that figure for engagements that result in a transaction. That doesn’t take into account the people they spend 40 hours with and don’t end in a transaction.
I feel you. I just bout a $715k house largely because I found it online, and went through an agent to show me the house and, I guess, do some paperwork for me? Her company made $21k off of the seller, and I'm sure she took at least half of it.
1. Lawyers are also a cartel
2. Realtors don't do much complicated stuff. If you take a "becoming a real estate agent" seminar they will probably walk you through the entire buy and sell side process for 90+% of transactions in a few hours.
My experience: the one time she actually had to facilitate a showing of the house, the alarm system got set off. And when the buyers asked to change the closing date (after plane tickets were bought), she agreed and told us we had no choice. The attorney set them all straight.
A realtor's primary skill seems to be getting you to sign the listing contract.
> But was it worth $12k for less than 40 hours of total work? I don't think so.
First, I agree that the fees charged are exorbitant. However, for many smaller realtors, they may not have much inventory at any given time. So, just like a freelance programmer, the buyer is paying for their work and for their downtime between jobs.
Isn't this a bit circular though? If the fees are high enough, it allows for an oversupply of realtors ... which only gets worse in a rising market because fees are % based and entry-to-market (for a realtor) is fairly easy. NB: easy to enter doesn't mean easy to succeed, which is borne out by the longevity statistics, I believe.
Sure, but a real estate agent who has a "seller" client has a pretty easy time finding "buyer" clients -- run an open house on a property you're selling and prospective buyers (specifically the ones that decide they don't want to buy the property being shown) come to you without even knowing that you exist.
I think though the average Realtor doesn't sell many houses in a year. I hear it is something like 12 sales/year. According to the Realtor website, the average gross income is around $40k.
"When I bought my house, my Realtor found some good listings, arranged viewings, did the paperwork, and set everything up for me. All useful services, and worth paying for. But was it worth $12k for less than 40 hours of total work? I don't think so."
A lot depends on the realtor.
One realtor I know not only does everything you mention, but also gives their clients lots of advice (based on many decades of experience in the industry) -- for instance, telling them if the prices they're setting on their home or bidding for are likely too high or too low, or what to do with a house in order to make it more likely to be sold. How much is such advice worth -- advice that could get them the house they're dreaming of or sell the house they desperately need to sell?
They also explain everything related to real-estate in great detail, tell them about the neighborhoods they're considering, drive them around all over the place (paying for their own gas, car, maintenance and insurance), sit in with them during the closing to go over the entire contract with them and explain everything and make sure they're not getting screwed. For sellers, the agent provides free advertising, spends a ton of time sitting at open houses waiting for people to show up and then showing them around, and trying to sell them the home, etc, etc. They negotiate deals and are the buyer's or seller's representative to the other party.
All this work is done for free unless the house is sold.
Again and again, I've heard how clients take months and months of this work done for free and then switch to go to another agent, paying the agent not a single dime for all the time they spent working for them. Or they'll just change their mind and no longer want to buy or sell.
I've heard so many horror stories from them: clients are often incredibly inconsiderate, calling at all hours of the night and on weekends (this is not a 9-5 job), expecting them to work when sick, or just being super abrasive assholes or liars. Personally, I would never put up with any of that, but agents have to make ends meet, so are often forced to work with those kinds of people or starve.
Watch the movie Glengarry Glen Ross sometime. The life of a typical real estate agent really is that bad, or worse.
Real estate agents also risk their own lives doing their jobs: they routinely go alone in to empty houses with complete strangers. It's not common, but real estate agents have been assaulted, raped, or killed while showing homes. How many people think of that: that being a real estate agent is actually a dangerous profession? I didn't until I got to know an agent well and they started telling me the horror stories of what they have to go through and put up with.
It's been a really long time since I saw that movie, but to my memory only one of them (the successful one) was a scammer.
One scene that stuck in my memory -- SPOILER ALERT -- was when one of the agents, who desperately needed to sell because he hadn't been able to sell in a long time and his job depended on it, finally thought he sold a home to a couple he had spent all this time and effort on, only to find out they have no money and just like talking to agents.
That actually happens. People will just waste a ton of real estate agents' time, with absolutely no intention to buy.
Real estate agents just get constantly jerked around, lied to, and cheated. That's just a fact of life for a real estate agent. I would never in a million years want to be one because of how constantly you get screwed -- and don't even get paid for your effort.
Isn't it kind of a self-inflicted problem though? As an organization, Realtors guard listings jealously, control access to house viewings, and bind themselves to clients with exclusivity contracts. It shouldn't be surprising their time gets wasted by people who are just window-shopping, because they're essentially standing in front of all the windows.
Maybe it is their fault. In my opinion the entire business model is fucked up. If it was up to me, I'd charge for every single hour of my time, charge for advertising and any other money I spend towards selling the home (or build it in to my hourly fee), and charge a commission on top of that. But from what I understand an agent can't do that because it's against the law.
As for exclusivity contracts: agents don't just impose those on clients. The client can sell the home themselves if they want, it's called "for sale by owner". But if they want an agent to represent them, then yeah, the agent will act as their representative. Why shouldn't an agent get paid for their time when they act as the seller's representative -- even if the house doesn't sell?
It just boggles my mind how much free work agents do.
You don't have to have an agent as a buyer. Real estate listings are easy to come by, and you could just even drive around a neighborhood and stop in to any home with a "for sale" sign yourself.
But if you've hired an agent, why wouldn't you pay for their time?
While you're window shopping, they drive you around (or at least drive to the homes with you in their own car, paying for the car, maintenance, gas and insurance), they give you their advice on the homes and neighborhoods you see, answer questions about the home, about how the sale will go or any other questions you have about real estate, giving you the benefit of their years of experience in the industry.
They take time out of their life to give you rather than being with their families, or with clients who are actually serious about buying.
I honestly don't understand how someone could take all that from others without trying to compensate them for all they've given you.
I'll watch it again, and I'll be the first to admit that there are unscrupulous salespeople of all stripes -- maybe they're even the rule rather than the exception. But there are also honest salespeople who truly want nothing but the best for their clients, who refuse to cheat or lie, and who often get screwed by people who do.
I personally know very well one of these latter types, and just feel really bad for them because of how much shit they have to put up with, how much work they have to do for free, and because it's a really tough business to succeed in if you're honest.
I think one of the main issues is it being a purely commission sale. I suspect that makes it easy for the principals to ignore the cost in their thinking but it makes the time investment riskier for the agent, which they have to balance against fee size etc.
Perhaps a better system would be a base fee + (lower) commission, and commission based on concrete sales target rather than market value...
In my own view the fairest structure would be an hourly wage plus commission based on the sale price.
That way even if the client backs out, at least the agent hasn't completely wasted their time, effort, and money for absolutely nothing.
I don't see why a commission should be limited, however. If you're great at your job and have a track record of selling homes home for more or buying homes for less than other agents can, why shouldn't you be allowed to charge more?
Even now, some agents (if they're desperate or just starting out in the field) will negotiate away part of their commission. So a lower commission is always an option too.
Commission is always limited in some absolute sense, but that's not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting structuring differently than on % of sale price ... after all that is affected by a lot of things out of the agents control and does not lead to incentives necessarily matched with the principal.
They already have options. You have 1% brokerages in every state now. There is even a guy in my town that will list your house on the mls for $500 until its sold. You bring him the pictures and an address. You do everything else yourself. He has an
a la' carte real estate brokerage.
Getting lots more agents playing around with the options is a good way to find out what works, so that's good.
I'm not sure how either of those address what I was responding too, though. If you are (as an agent) doing all the legwork in the hopes of getting paid on close, it's risky. Some form of industry standard way for agents to get paid a bit for this work I thing would improve it for everyone, but ymmv.
(Disclaimer: I work for a tech company in the real estate industry. Opinions are my own.)
> It blows my mind that the fees are percentage based. The amount of work required for an agent on a 100K house is very similar to that of a 2 Mill house.
Negotiating a $100,000 purchase or sale is an order of magnitude less lower stakes than negotiating a $2,000,000 purchase or sale. If you're a real estate agent and you're able to negotiate 5% up or down on the final sale price on a $2,000,000 house, that's equivalent to the entire value of the $100,000 house. It's not the same job. You could make the exact same argument about salesmen who are paid commission (which is almost exactly the same job as a seller's agent).
> but for both the seller and buyer agents, the number of deals done far outweighs slight incremental selling prices
There's definitely a bias for getting a deal done from the agent's perspective--moreso than for other sales or procurement agents because closing deals unblocks deal flow. I think this gets balanced out by the principals (buyers and sellers themselves) having final say on whether to extend or accept an offer.
$2M house. Seller's realtor says, "Drop the price $200,000 to get a sale". Costs seller $200,000. Gains realtor $54,000 (costs $6,000 from .03*$2M). Or hold out for the sale at $2M. Nets seller $200,000 and increases the realtor's commission only $6K additional with all concerns of delay, potential withdrawal of sale, etc.
This is an immediate and unpreventable conflict of interest that impacts the realtor's fiduciary responsibility to act in the principal's interest.
I'm having trouble following your math here, how can the seller's realtor gain money from selling the house at a lower price? How did you arrive at the figure of $54k??
It's true that a realtor might favor a slightly lower price for a faster sale but I don't get your numbers.
$2M house. 6% commission split 3% to seller's realtor and buyer's realtor. Seller's realtor gets $60K if it sells in 1 month or 1 year, same commission. No sale = $0.
First week gets a 10% low offer of $1,800,000. If sale completes, that's $54,000 income for the realtor (.03*1800000). Or, could hold out for a better offer after for some months of additional work to hopefully get an offer for the full $2M, and the realtor just gets $6,000 more - or $0 if no sale. Seller holding out would get $200,000 more, or if no sale, still has the house.
Realtor's personal interest is to maximize return on invested work - take an early offer and go on to the next sale, even if it is low. Seller's best interest is probably to hold out for a bit better deal.
I suspect this actually starts to change at the upper end of the market, but only if you have proportional commissions.
There aren't that many $10,000,000 houses. You can't just dump a $10,000,000 house ASAP and list another $10,000,000 house next week. And at $10,000,000, every percentage point in sale price is worth a marginal $3000 to the sellers' agent. If someone comes in 10% below listing on a $10MM house, the difference alone is equivalent to the sellers' agent commission on an entire $1,000,000 house.
I'm as suspicious of realtors as anybody, but this scenario here includes a real asshole as a seller. If she doesn't want to sell her house, she shouldn't waste everybody's time by putting it on the market. This sort of "just testing the market" shenanigan raises costs for everyone.
Levitt and Dubner found that, on average, self-listed homes stay on the market an extra 10 days, prompting the authors to hypothesize that agents might be a little more aggressive about their own homes because a 3 percent fluctuation makes a fair difference on the total sale price, but not that much of a difference when it comes to the commission.
ITT we're talking about "some months" (three? eight? more than a couple, anyway), not "10 days". The Freaks are just hypothesizing the price rise anyway; markets don't always go up.
Your link identifies the only actual service that realtors provide: objectivity. Houses are worth what buyers will pay for them. The realtor who can predict what price a house will fetch in the near term is providing a service. Permanent realtor's signs indicate failures of objectivity.
In the scenario the seller is gaining $200K by waiting two months. You think she should forgo this money to save everyone else's time looking at her ads?
I personally try and be a polite person, but I'm not $200K polite.
The commission shouldn't be based on the full price though. When a car salesman sells a car, their commission is based on the profit, not the total price. Selling a Honda can get you more commission than a BMW if you are good at what you do.
To make the same for a house, the seller should say "this is how much I want" and then the agent gets to keep say 50% of whatever they get over that price. Then the incentives are aligned.
It’s still a horrible idea. If I know the market value of my house which is easy to find out based on comparables, how much over could the real estate agent sell it for? The buyer can’t get a loan for more than the house is appraised for. In most house buying situations, the seller,buyer, and mortgage company all know what the house is worth with only a little wiggle room.
> The buyer can’t get a loan for more than the house is appraised for.
The buyer in most cases (there are exceptions) probably can't get a loan with a LTV ratio higher than some number less than or equal to 1 times the appraisal value (.8 typically for a conventional, first mortgage alone), but can generally put as much of their own money into a purchase as they want.
Outside of a very few areas of the country. There is more than enough housing inventory for people not to pay over the appraised value of the house. Most people are smart enough not to be upside down on their home the day they move in.
If you have good credit you can still get 100% LTV loans. Heck you only have to have a 600 credit score and not have had a foreclosure in 3 years to get a government back FHA loan with 3.5% down.
There are plenty of people who did “strategic defaults” on multiple properties after 2008, rented for three years and got an FHA loan for a new mortgage (ask me how I know).
If the seller doesn’t offer enough wiggle room no agent will take the deal.
The seller would have to offer enough wiggle room that the agent wants to take on the risk. Combined with a flat fee, the system would guarantee income for the agent and also align the incentives.
I have an even more cynical take on things. I purchased a house last summer and played the naive buyer and entered into a dual-agency agreement with the selling agent. Due to the competitive market in the town we were buying in, this was to hopefully give us the tiebreak with competing offers. I have few expectations from a buyers agent beyond opening doors to let us in to view properties and to communicate with the seller's agent.
For selling our prior house, I think our seller's agent actually performed some services. She ran the open house, gave us great advice on pricing in our town (5 square miles, she's been selling for 30 years), and -most importantly- gave a buffer in communication with the buyer. Should any issues arise, there's no direct communication with the buyer AND it also helped us be dispassionate when choosing among our various offers.
Was your hope with this strategy that the double commission would cause the agent to steer the sale to you?
I see things about strategies like this, and then seriously question whether I feel agents in general have enough integrity to warrant leaving me out of the communication process as you propose.
Yes, that was definitely part of it. In the town we purchased in (near Boston suburb) the median home value is > $1 million, so that extra 2.5 percent is a lot of money.
In our last homebuying experience, we lost two houses to other buyers. In both cases, our offer was higher than the closing price by 5-10% BUT our buyer's agent was from a different agency than the sellers. In both of those cases, the people who got the house were represented by someone from the same agency as the seller.
You can get breakfast at the Breakers for 50 bucks or the Waffle House down the street for 10 dollars. The Breakers waitstaff will get a 10 dollar tip and the Waffle house staff will get 2 dollars for the exact same meal and the exact same amount of work. It's a messed up system.
The way the market seems to compensate for this is that more agents flood into that job market for a given number of houses, and then they spend proportionally more time trying to find clients. They spend a relatively small fraction of their time actually helping existing clients in very hot markets, since they just don't have many (except the few top agents/brokers, who do very well for themselves).
But spending all your time finding clients isn't actually useful work in helping transactions happen, so it's less and less efficient as the home values go up.
At least that's what I've observed from a distance.
Maybe, but there are better options. As o nate's comment notes [1], the vast majority of their compensation comes from the house getting sold at all, and the gain from anything beyond that is weak. So they're actually incentivized to just make sure the deal happens and not go for the extra.
> the vast majority of their compensation comes from the house getting sold at all, and the gain from anything beyond that is weak
You might find this study[1] interesting:
>Our central finding is that, when listings are not tied to brokerage services, a seller's use of a broker reduces the selling price of the typical home by 5.9 to 7.7 percent, which indicates that agency costs exceed the advantages of brokers' knowledge and expertise by a wide margin.
There was a Freakanomics podcast episode or book section (I don't remember) where they asserted that the data showed realtors left their own homes on the market longer, ultimately yielding a higher sale price, when compared to homes they were selling for their clients.
The reasoning they gave was that the difference in the realtor's percentage between a lower total price and a higher total price was not meaningful enough for them to do extra work or take extra time to get it. It is better for them to sell more houses for less, rather than fewer houses for more.
So yeah, the percent means the incentives are more aligned, but maybe not aligned enough.
>There was a Freakanomics podcast episode or book section (I don't remember) where they asserted that the data showed realtors left their own homes on the market longer, ultimately yielding a higher sale price, when compared to homes they were selling for their clients.
It was a bit more subtle than that.
Given a fixed percentage (let's take the 6%), if the agent sells today the house (valued 100,000-120,000 US$) he/she gets US$ 6,000 today.
If the 100,000 offer is refused the house stays on the market for - say - 3 months more, and eventually is sold at 110,000 US$) the agents gets only US$ 600 more (and three months later), but has to arrange many more visits, so the formula is incentivating "quick sales" and the agent has all the interest to counsel the seller to accept a "low offer".
The proposal by the freakanomics authors was to increase the percentage due to the agent on the sums exceeding the "base value" of the property, so that the convenience would be shifted to "sell the house at the highest reasonable price in a reasonable time".
To the people citing Freakonomics. I've read that piece it was a comparison of real estate agents selling their own houses vs their clients houses. Not flat fee vs % based commision.
> There was a Freakanomics podcast episode or book section (I don't remember) where they asserted that the data showed realtors left their own homes on the market longer, ultimately yielding a higher sale price, when compared to homes they were selling for their clients.
Real estate agents are more likely to plan sufficient time to maximize sale value; most people make plans with timelines where sale (or purchase; I bet you’ll find a similar issue on the other side, too) of the house is a blocker for other things before talking to an agent, so the disruption of not completing the transaction timely is significant.
My impression is that realtors who have their own investments in a market in which they operate sometimes err on the side of overpricing even when they know listings will remain on the market longer than the seller might want. In smaller, growing markets like Colorado it even looks like cartel behavior to me, since multiple brokers follow the same strategy.
Pretty simple to fix actually. Charge a flat fee up front, like $1,000, to do the initial listing. Get the house independently appraised, maybe subtract 10%. Give incentive commission equal to the difference in the sale price and the discounted assessed home value * 20%. So if the agent manages to sell a $500,000 home for $700,000, they get a $41,000 commission. If the home sells for 10% below its market value, they only get the $1,000 compensation for the listing.
Of course this will never actually happen due to the racket currently going on as described in the lawsuit. Why would they agree to this structure when they can already skim 6% off the home price just buy submitting some photos to MLS and opening up doors and closets for people for a few weeks.
No real estate agent I've ever worked with or heard of encourages holding out for a better price. They try to talk you into accepting the fastest close.
Time is money and the faster they close on your house the faster they can start selling the next one.
Then what’s wrong with buyers’ agents taking a flat fee, and sellers’ agents taking a percentage? That right there could almost cut these types of fees in half.
I'd rather see both sides take a flat fee + a higher percentage of the difference from some benchmark. Say, $2,000 + 20% * (Zillow's estimated value - sale price) for the buyer's agent. I have no strong opinion on whether the second addend should be floored at $0 or not.
I agree. But what most consumers don't know is that there are other models[1] to consider when buying or selling. Some brokerages now charge a flat fee, some do trade ins and so on.
Plug: a friend and I created listingrates, a way for consumers to learn about these new models and compare fees.
> The amount of work required for an agent on a 100K house is very similar to that of a 2 Mill house
Liability, and the odds of litigation, are vastly higher are bigger dollar amounts. My personal experience with realtors has been pretty much useless. But a bigger asset takes more resources to present and has a lower hit rate given the smaller pool of buyers. There are also unique lending problems that expensive assets run into.
I mean, the risk a realtor takes on 2million/100k times the risk in selling a $2mil house versus a 100k house. If the realtor makes false statements on accident, etc, they can be sued up to the total amount in consideration -- which is the price of the house.
Moreover, it is likely more work to sell a $2mil home, because there are proportionately fewer buyers, which means more work in sourcing buyers, more work in retaining interest, etc.
This comment is written by someone who's never sold a home. In general, it's very easy to look at someone else's job and say 'that person basically does nothing!'. I mean, half the time I look at software engineers sitting their typing and I think to myself "I could do that!".
Plus, if you're selling a $2million home, you can afford $120k.
The reality is realtors are well protected in the sale of the home for many reasons that are defined in the legal documentation required and not in the closing process.
Given the point I'm curious now of how many individual realtors take the blame in a sale after the fact? It is generally the seller who's on the hook and is directly sued from what I've seen. Maybe this is incorrect but it's rarely the middle man stepping in to take the bullet.
In fact I have a personal example where an agency did not do due diligence on behalf of me and shifted the blame to me leaving me holding the bag of potentially being out 5 figures in a botched purchase. Not until I threatened to take legal action against both agencies (never sign arbitration BTW) did both of then come to the plate to decide on how to avoid that as both agencies had points of blame.
Regardless, even though the realtors were to blame neither of them seemed concerned and ultimately the claim was handled by the agencies at a higher level than the individuals to blame.
There is an argument of diminishing return on the value of realtors however I wouldn't paint it with such a broad stroke. That being said I do believe it's s scam that realtors in a legacy mindset are offended when negotiating their rate comes up - regardless of their work put into the sale of the home. Many flat out will not even hear the argument and seem entitled to it while being unable to defend the rationalization of.
> Maybe this is incorrect but it's rarely the middle man stepping in to take the bullet.
Yes, the seller is the party responsible. However, if he hired an agent and was relying on the agent's advice, the seller can sue the agent. That is the difference between hiring an agent and doing it yourself. You are basically paying the brokerage to insure you against sticking your foot in your mouth, and the brokerage -- to limit their liability in the first place -- gives you an agent who tells you how not to screw yourself.
As you yourself said, once you threatened to sue, the agencies started getting stuff done. That's the point. If you didn't use them, you would have no one to shift the blame to.
> That being said I do believe it's s scam that realtors in a legacy mindset are offended when negotiating their rate comes up - regardless of their work put into the sale of the home
As someone who believes in the free market, I of course do not object to wanting to negotiate rates, but if no agent is willing to do it, well then, they're just charging what the market will bear. You are, of course, free to sell your home and take on the liability yourself.
> As someone who believes in the free market, I of course do not object to wanting to negotiate rates, but if no agent is willing to do it, well then, they're just charging what the market will bear. You are, of course, free to sell your home and take on the liability yourself.
This is exactly why I've sold my homes FSBO with an actual real estate lawyer. Real estate agents are rarely lawyers and their training sometimes seems to give them the idea they are legal experts - they are not. The point I was making was that the agents both made mistakes and neither were held accountable. The reason the agencies stepped in was to fix the mistakes (legal mistakes) that were made. There are other ways to sell a house that do not require an agent that do protect you as a seller (or a buyer). I don't use agents anymore because of this and I've had nothing but a more positive experience given that the information from the buy side is much more accessible, and cheaper. I know what I'm looking for and I'm well capable of setting up searches to find that. Realty agencies know this and are trying to protect their vested interest by playing new games like "premarket" opportunities. I don't see how they're progressing the experience, but are only making moves to protect a legacy model. Very similar to how ridesharing has been, overall, positive disruption.
Some states actually require a lawyer in the process as well. So not only is the RE agent holding out their hand for their 3%, there’s a lawyer that wants a couple grand for what is usually filling out boilerplate. Not only that, but you can also find states where the agents aren’t legally allowed to tell you what is a “good” neighborhood or school district.
I would rather pay an RE agent by the hour to show me houses than this percentage nonsense. Zillow/Google street view helps to drop most of the false positives, and the agent can help me focus on real candidates.
I have never had someone who has not done programming before, watch me typing into a terminal and say it looks easy.
I don't think its hard or requires a huge amount of intelligence, but I think it is crazy to compare the barrier of entry for real estate to that of software engineer.
The average person would take minimum a year to go from no-skills to an actually useful independent engineer. I could literally take a crack at selling a house after a week of training and probably do alright.
> I could literally take a crack at selling a house after a week of training and probably do alright.
My father was an agent, so I'm obviously biased. However, thinking that 'selling a home' is all there is to being an agent is incredibly naive. It is a professional certification, where you have to be knowledgeable about the laws of the state you operate in, because they control your business.
Compared to the regulatory environment of real estate, software is a dream. You pay the realtor for having passed a test saying that he/she is capable of representing you in accordance with the law.
Also, you probably would not be able to sell a home. Sales is a skill unto itself. Only non-salespeople think it's easy. Having seen what my dad would have to do, I noped out of sales real quick. Engineering is way easier.
> I have never had someone who has not done programming before, watch me typing into a terminal and say it looks easy
85% of realtors drop out of the industry within 18 months. My impression is that this is because "becoming a realtor" is very easy.
A counterpoint might be that it's because being a _good_ realtor is hard, and I believe that that is true to some extent. But that means you aren't _really_ paying someone "for having passed a test saying that he/she is capable of representing you in accordance with the law", because the licensing burden is really small. For instance, it's much smaller than the licensing burden you need to start cutting peoples hair.
But the barriers to entry for these things are also small. It's money for the fees, and given that these people are 100% commission finding a broker is not a big challenge.
Do you honestly disagree that the barrier to entry to being a practicing real estate agent is low? Doesn't mean it isn't hard to be a _successful_ one, but the basic barrier to entry just doesn't seem that high.
I thing the barrier to entry is not that low, otherwise we would have a ton of HN folks getting their license to make leadgen sites and collect 25% referral fees (from the 3%) for having to really not deal with the customer.
Barrier to entry is what makes some jobs pay more than others. I think programming is easier than working in fast food, but you could literally take almost anyone with an elementary school education and turn them into a productive fast food worker in a matter of days.
I might not be good at real estate, but I bet in a weeks time I could do a passable job filling out necessary documents and doing open houses.
There is no reality where someone who has no programming experience is anything other than a huge liability if you give them a week of training and then assign a feature to them and tell them to start coding, testing, and making pull requests for it.
There is a fatalism mentality when it comes to writing about big technology ambitions like this. Maybe people are just jaded and used to being let down so much. There is zero doubt in my mind that this endeavor will cost more than expected, take longer than expected, etc... but at the end of the day the effort alone is going to spur other tunneling companies to push for innovations as well. Who knows if any of these early prototypes prove useful, but it sure is clear that Elon sees a lot of room for improvement in the technology, and at this point I wouldn't bet against that.
There's fatalism about this because Elon hasn't actually proposed anything innovative. Literally everything Elon has said he wants his boring machine to do, other boring machine companies have already been doing for 2 or 3 decades.
The only remotely "innovative" thing that Elon has suggested is recovering the boring machine after tunnel digging. Even this isn't innovative--the reason most boring machines aren't recovered is because it would cost too much to extract them from the surface. Elon's proposed method of extraction (digging down from the surface) is the method the industry already uses in those situations where it is cost-effective to recover the machine.
The boring machines that BoringCo is using are used boring machines that were recovered using the "innovative" method that Elon proposed. It was cost effective to do so because they're relatively tiny, as far as boring machines go.
Edit: I'm one of those people that believe in what Elon is doing and while I don't consider myself a fan-boy, I get plenty frustrated by all of the biased negativity I somehow feel the need to inject some balance by saying something. That may come across as only ever defending, but the amount of negative fluff articles is astonishing.
What about this article makes it "fluff" to you? Or biased, for that matter? Is the reporting inaccurate?
Accusations of bias like this always confuse me, as if reporting is obliged to present both sides: "Tesla won't give customers their own crash data. But some say that's a good thing!"
I think it's fair to have both positive and negative articles about companies shared around, I just wish to understand if there is a personal story to be shared too, specially given I am skeptical about self-driving cars as of today, and public claims about their success rates.
OK, you've accused me of submitting "click-bait karma" and "negative fluff articles". Care to elaborate on why you think the article under discussion is not legitimate?
It singles out Tesla and provides no broader context. Specifically there is no mention of the policies of other car companies. It is like saying that Kumo tires have been in 5 million car accidents. Sounds bad for Kumo, but there is no context to other types of tires. Will BMW or Lexus provide vehicle data after a crash? Will Google provide Android Auto data upon request?
OK, so it's incumbent on you to show where other companies have used data in the way that Tesla has done in response to accidents. Here's a Guardian article from last year that made a related allegation about Tesla and user data:
> The Guardian could not find a single case in which Tesla had sought the permission of a customer who had been involved in an accident before sharing detailed information from the customer’s car with the press when its self-driving software was called into question. Tesla declined to provide any such examples and disputed the description of its automation software, called Autopilot, as “self-driving”.
I've Googled around but haven't been able to find instances of other companies releasing data in the wake of an incident, or being criticized by owners for not releasing data, though obviously the average car does not have the data systems that are standard on Tesla.
When Facebook gets criticized in an article for exposing/sharing user data, do you ignore the article if it doesn't have a complete rundown of how every other tech company may or may not abuse user data?
Isn't this true of any car company? BMW, Mercedes, and Lexus aren't going to hand over vehicle data. You can't just ask Google for your Android Auto data.
But as a bonus, they're not likely to be so "proactive" about handing over your vehicle data or findings to the media to help manage their publicity process, either...
Those companies aren't in the news blaming drivers for crashes which occur while using their "autopilot" tech. So you may be right, but context matters. Maybe someday it will be them in the hot seat, but today, it's Tesla.
As I recall, when Toyota was dealing with accidents involving electronic throttles and "unintended acceleration" they did publicly claim that the accidents were a case of drivers stepping on the throttle instead of the brake.
(Note, this was separate from the real problem of floor mats interfering with the pedals, for which there was a recall).
The NHTSA apparently agreed.
Because proof that the ETCS-i caused the reported UAs was not found does not mean it could not occur. However, the testing and analysis described in this report did not find that TMC ETCS-i electronics are a likely cause of large throttle openings as described in the VOQs
Having been a fan of Apple for over a decade now, over the last year I've come to the opposite point of view. Their iPhone and airpods are great products and of course they can ride a long time on those, but in every other area from Macs and accessories I feel they are falling flat on delivering great user experiences. From FaceTime to Siri, to crappy Apple TV remotes, Home Kit... there are just a LOT of mediocre products that sit idle for years. Of all times, the company is at the point most worth criticizing. I do blame Tim Cook for this stagnation in product development. And indeed their lack of ideas means they have nothing better to do with their cash, that they are buying back shares. Ehh, I'm so jaded these days on Apple.
My parents are actually frightened of the new Apple TV remote. They hide it somewhere where they won't knock into it, because they know it'll switch the TV's input to the Apple TV, and they'll have to hunt down a different remote to switch it back to the cable box.
Interesting you say that about the Apple TV remotes. I thought they were all horrible but I really like the new one. The speed at which I can move around and the precision of selecting things is really great.
Why can't I tell which side is up without looking at it or accidentally changing something? Why is the black IR sensor the same size, shape, and location as the charging port, but on the wrong side? Why can't it decide that a log press when it's upside down is probably someone sitting on it? Why is it too small to comfortably hold?
Maybe this thing works for people without kids, but I'll take a boring remote any day.
We had a lot of trouble with the new Apple TV remote. Stuff like it getting knocked slightly and the Apple TV going wild, etc. Luckily the AppleTV generations that use it also support HDMI-CEC so we just use our TV remote instead.
There are a few left from reputable sellers on Ebay and sometimes online vendors for around $1750. Without tax, that's about the same price you'll pay refurbished at Apple.
I did the same. While I used to use my account regularly 5+ years ago, my feed was just full of stupid updates. People posting food pics, family commenting on news, and old viral videos, and lots and lots of ads. So, hey, I deleted my account. While Facebook isn't loosing any revenue from me, it certainly didn't ever attract me back into the active user status. Good riddance.
A few months back I had tried doing the "Hide this Page" game hoping to reclaim my feed. This turned into a Sisyphean task that makes Inbox Zero look fun. As it turns out, there are also a number of pages[0] that you simply cannot hide or otherwise unfollow.
I happened to "delete" my profile a week before this shit storm blew up and thankfully someone pointed out the Deactivate vs. Delete dark pattern and I quickly fixed that situation.
It's a weird world when the Smut Peddlers have some sound advice on living.
[0] - I didn't keep a list, but I recall one called "Wittitudes" or something along those lines simply lacked the "Hide" option, and all attempts at blocking it failed.
