Ah but that’s my point, you can’t compare like for like because the value of a house is far more than just the physical building. It’s location, location, location, and the town your house is in is a whole different place to what it was in 1968.
Again, not defending the state of the market, just pointing out that extrapolating this out to the requirements of minimum wage is more complicated that calculating 500,000/19,500
I’m currently in the long tedious process of replacing all my details for every website and service with an email address at a domain I actually own, before some AI bot at Google decides that some random shit violates their TOC and deletes my Gmail.
insane if true
It’s actually quite difficult to compare like-for-like.
You can take the average or median price, but then this ignores the fact that as more people move towards the big cities, the average house isn’t the same thing as it was in 1970.
The other problem is overlooking interest rates. The 70s and early 80s was an extremely volatile time, with typical mortgage rates hitting over 10%, 15%, and over 20% at various points. Taking out a $12,000 mortgage ran the risk of your monthly repayments shooting up to $200 in interest alone, at a time when minimum wage was $267/month.
So, $66 is probably true for a very particular interpretation, but I’m sure you could just as easily find a way for it to come out as $65 or $67.
None of the above should be read as a defence of capitalism or of landlords, just pointing out some details that often get missed.
That one wasn’t the one I had issues with, since the concept is essentially the same across all languages. We say it’s false because we can’t conclusively say that it’s true. Same as the reason why null != null in SQL.
Having your home valued at $4,400,000 is what most of us would call a nice problem to have.
The code is a set of preprocessor macros to stuff loads of booleans into one int (or similar), in this case named ‘myFlags’. The preprocessor is a simple (some argue too simple) step at the start of compilation that modifies the source code on its way to the real compiler by substituting #defines, prepending #include’d files, etc.
If myFlags is equal to, e.g. 67, that’s 01000011, meaning that BV00, BV01, and BV07 are all TRUE and the others are FALSE.
The first part is just for convenience and readability. BV00 represents the 0th bit, BV01 is the first etc. (1 << 3) means 00000001, bit shifted left three times so it becomes 00001000 (aka 8).
The middle chunk defines macros to make bit operations more human-readable.
SET_BIT(myFlags, MY_FIRST_BOOLEAN) gets turned into ((myFlags) |= ((1 << 0))) , which could be simplified as myFlags = myFlags | 00000001 . (Ignore the flood of parentheses, they’re there for safety due to the loaded shotgun nature of the preprocessor.)
Back in the day when it mattered, we did it like
#define BV00 (1 << 0)
#define BV01 (1 << 1)
#define BV02 (1 << 2)
#define BV03 (1 << 3)
...etc
#define IS_SET(flag, bit) ((flag) & (bit))
#define SET_BIT(var, bit) ((var) |= (bit))
#define REMOVE_BIT(var, bit) ((var) &= ~(bit))
#define TOGGLE_BIT(var, bit) ((var) ^= (bit))
....then...
#define MY_FIRST_BOOLEAN BV00
SET_BIT(myFlags, MY_FIRST_BOOLEAN)
It’s such an insane story that I wonder what the other side of it is. It’s easy to imagine the guy just having got out of a meeting ten minutes earlier with “if you don’t get Julia Roberts into a movie by the end of the week, I’ll see you never work in this town again!” ringing in his ears.
Yes. This is basically the core of why capitalism eats itself.
You don’t have to be evil or short-sighted to be a CEO, but if you don’t do evil and short-sighted shit to pump the share price there’s a high probability the board will replace you with someone who will.
This is why I believe the government should hold stock and sit on the boards of any company that gets publicly listed. Much easier than tying yourself in knots with an adversarial system of complex regulations.
The terrifying thing is that this is just a temporary technical misstep.
Musk’s response to this won’t be to pack that shit in, it’ll be to order his goons to figure out how to make it more subtle.
I think at least a few of those objections are addressed in the show.
The reason I didn’t like it is that all the previous incarnations of Wednesday had her as vengeful to those who deserved it, but basically decent, if a little sardonic, towards those who didn’t. Whereas this new one was a colossal B to everyone she met by default; made it kind of hard to root for her.
Sure, but they have a crazy large amount of data and an army of Data Science PhDs who sat down and calculated they’d make more money increasing their margins on people who’ll put up with it, than they’d lose pissing the rest of their customers off.
All the rest of us can do is leave our Torrents running and keep our ratios up…
I was sort of on Mike Goldman (the challenge giver)'s side until I saw the great point made at the end that the entire challenge was akin to a bar room bet; Goldman had always set it up as a kind of scam from the start and was clearly more than happy to take $100 from anyone who fell for it, and so should have taken responsibility when someone managed to meet the wording of his challenge.
Are you trying to get rickrolled?
It’s not going to stop me yelling at the clouds every time it happens
My LinkedIn feed is now full of Suggested posts from people with things like “Vibe Coding guru” in their strapline posting bullshit tracts about how Vibe Coding Isn’t What You All Think. I keep blocking them but LinkedIn keeps suggesting them.
I think OP forgot the movie scene this template is from. Peter sees better without the glasses.
This is true, and yet somehow when I buy the “XL” sized cartridges they don’t feel like they lasted much longer than the “S” size that came with it.
This would be all very well and good in principle, except that this assumption has now already been factored into mainstream Republican strategy. It’s now an everyday occurrence for them to say something absolutely outrageous based on the expectation that the “compromise” will be struck exactly where they want things to be.
What’s more, Windows S Mode proved perfectly that you could offer the “safe” functionality that Apple claim they need to protect their customers, without fucking things up for people who wanted to take responsibility for vetting applications themselves.