This line of reasoning never made sense to me. If the value of the land is going up enough to make an impact on the month to month financials then it makes sense to dip into the equity of the property. Presumably the overall equity still goes up? Beneficiaries still inherit more in fiat terms? What’s the issue here?

Also datacenters are absolutely not going to be built on ultra desirable land, why would the developer ruin the land value that way?

Land is worthless under 100% LVT. Your land value going up just means you owe the government more in rent every year, since the government owns all the land rents. The only real solution to this problem is prop 13 I think which georgists hate. Nationwide prop 13(only on homes) + LVT is still probably better than the current system though imo, although it creates a huge incentive to never move

It's going to come full circle and the model's output layer is going to be the grid of pixels. Nvidia will have returned home.

Apple literally has automatic commute notifications that tell you the optimal route (15 minutes via Easy St.), in this hypothetical world where your agent knows enough about you to suggest today's route, why doesn't your digital panopticon purveyor (be it Apple, Google, your car manufacturer) automatically pull that info the second you get into your car?

I don't know how many different ways there are to say that I do not want "the optimal route" according to Apple or Google.

I think this is coming across as glib or crabby but there's something more significant I'm trying to communicate. This subthread is in one of the classic software developer problem solving modes: pose a question or a problem, respond with "what are you really trying to do", argue that the problem was misconceived to begin with.

Eric Raymond wrote a whole giant piece about this.

But the world in which nerds could congratulate themselves about knowing what the real questions were and separating them from the dumb questions being asked by noobs who aren't holding things right is gone. Why do I care whether a software developer thinks I'm holding the tool right? Why do I care that someone familiar with Apple's fixed-function prefab software ecosystem believes there's a better way to handle my commute than what I'm trying to do?

OK? You use those tools. I'm just going to have my computer do the thing the way I want it to work. It's my commute, and my computer, this is the very specific tool I want, and all it took to get it on my screen and working reliably was for me to ask an agent, which didn't lecture me about the proper way to ask the question or what question I should have asked instead, but instead just fucking did the thing I asked for.

It's wild to me that software nerds believe they're going to win this argument.

I think there's some irony of this reply. You're a software developer, I think you're vastly overestimating the general public's interest in product and software development. Almost like https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2501:_Average_Fam...

What even is "product and software development" anymore?

You might as well just say "I think you're overestimating the general public's interest in using computers", because that's what it's going to mean to use a computer in a couple years, and way sooner than we think --- asking it to do arbitrary, random things, whatever we want in the moment, and then having that happen.

We don't even need to get better than Opus 5.5 to reach that moment. We just need Opus 5.5 to get significantly cheaper and faster. You can bet against that if you want, but I'm glad to be on the other side of that bet.

I don't mean to be snippy, but I think this is a really important feature of the discussion about personal apps, and it's worth being clear about it.

> What even is "product and software development" anymore?

The ideation of features, their requirements, getting code for features written, testing the features, seeing how they fit in with the rest of the landscape, and maintaining those features. Same as before. Do those go away in your future? Even with the aid of AI agents, do you really think billions of people will want to go through that process every time they want a device to do something? Do you really think the younger generations who are being told AI will replace them will also embrace AI?

Similar to how even your hypothetical devices of the future still very much have an operating system (a kernel, libraries for software to interface with hardware, a standard suite of apps and tools, an environment for the user to kick things off)

> You might as well just say "I think you're overestimating the general public's interest in using computers"

I might, because I think the general public doesn't much like to "use the computer". It's what they need to use for work, or school, or how to listen to music or watch what they want to watch.

We're only just starting the general public's introduction to agentic AI with Siri and some Android devices. I'm betting there will eventually be some horror stories.

we could spend time answering that question or, as tptacek proposes, diy the solution because the app making app is right there, and answers to your input not Apple/Google's

Much tighter electronic control of fuel, ignition and even cooling system combined with tighter tolerances and modern oil formulations. Wait for the cat to light off and the revs drop and then put it in gear and take it easy for the next couple of minutes of driving.

The volt was more like a Prius Plugin++. It still has a planetary gearset through which the engine would drive the wheels.

The first gen volt basically never drove the wheels via the gas engine.

gVisor virtualizes all syscalls which pass through a host userspace golang process that then maps onto the host's syscalls.

Nice, albeit I am not sure I understand the threat profile. I see something like gvisor making sense in a multi-tenant enviroment, but presumably OP is not pulling in the sketchiest of sketchy dependencies and build artifacts. Further, I cannot see how something like this protects you against something like a typical supplychain attack.

That sounds like a huge hit to performance

Per syscall performance overhead has surprisingly low impact on overall performance of programs. gVisor's benchmarks are here: https://gvisor.dev/docs/architecture_guide/performance/

What do CVEs like this one mean for the likes of fly.io and cloudflare who use V8 for sandboxing 3p workloads? I guess they have some degree of KYC and some hardening outside the sandbox, but chaining this with a container escape running under a free tier account could pwn the host.

You can just ask ChatGPT these questions these days, but it was a fun read:

fly.io depends on Firecracker microVMs, so you should be concerned if you're running untrusted code, but not concerned about other people interacting with you wrt v8.

Cloudflare depends on v8 isolates, which depend on the trustworthiness of the v8 sandbox, which is a non-trivial hurdle, but not an insurmountable one for attackers with the resources to have a v8 bug in the first place.

> just ask ChatGPT these questions these days, but it was a fun read

I'd prefer they ask here. Just saying.

Apple trying to sit on two chairs. Make bank selling hypeware while keeping distance to not sully their brand too much.

They have no "brand" left with all around hostile behavior wherever they can. The only brand they currently are so proud of is being more expensive than everyone else just because. It's been always a hardware company that doesn't even build their own hardware. Anyone can do that. Call up your investors.

no doubt because of scraping and the cost of IPv4

Isn't that due to gig work (effectively -EV for a huge chunk of people) and other math shenanigans?