Would that be North African Lawyer, or North American Lawyer?

In any case, we’re splitting the cheque. /s

If it’s not court tested, I’m guessing we can assume a legal theory that breaks all software licensing will not hold up.

Like, maybe the code snippets that are AI-made themselves can be stolen, but not different parts of the project.

If there was an actual civil suit you’d probably be able to subpoena people for that information, and the standard is only more likely than not. I have no idea if the general idea is bullshit, though.

IANAL

By that same logic LLMs themselves (by now some AI bro had to vibe code something there)

I’m guessing LLMs are still really really bad at that kind of programming. The packaging of the LLM, sure.

& their trained datapoints

For legal purposes, it seems like the weights would be generated by the human-made training algorithm. I have no idea if that’s copyrightable under US law. The standard approach seems to be to keep them a trade secret and pretend there’s no espionage, though.

Oh okay. But the point that it sure has grown stands.

That’s actually amazing, and I think I just spawned a new project.

(Y’know, to distract from all the other ones)

Sure?

If you have a minor in economics, you know about frictional misallocation. It addresses nothing.

Maybe I’d attach some kind of significance to the slight fluctuation they mentioned, if the “trends” they identified from the statistics they actually showed us weren’t lying with statistics. As it is, I’ll put that in the innuendo category.

What is the reason, besides finacialization, that restricting supply makes sense?

It sounds good to voters. Zoning is basically a promise to keep the neighborhood free of things you don’t personally care about under the guise of thoughtfulness. Current owners like that, and it’s too abstract for most of the people who lose from it to care about.

Same reason they scream bloody murder when it goes away. Calgary’s zoning just got forced back in.

How could I possibly be quoting out of this article if I didn’t read it? They divide housing stock by number of (thousands of) adults for the upper line of the second graph. If the average number of adults in a household changes, that line is misleading. They make an effort by not including children, but it’s not enough.

That’s my guess why the 20th century looks that way, anyway. If you crop at 2000, suddenly it shows exactly what mainstream analysts have been saying - lots of immigrants came in all at once, and the housing supply tightened. Otherwise it’s close to flat.

Beyond housing itself, they inject (current, Canadian) numbers about debt, but that connects to a lot of things, and the ratio of home price to median income. Median household income has diverged from the mean, and yes the finance system has changed. They really haven’t made an argument for their version to dissect. It’s all innuendo and appeal to the authority of other people they agree with.

They start with “the CMHC is recommending too much construction”, which is defensible, but “housing is all a huge bubble” is a more extraordinary claim, and “actually there’s plenty of houses” is a non-sequitur.

And yes, I have a minor in Economics with a Math major. FWIW.

I’m surprised at the language you’re using, then. ECON101 is a phrase you see from people who think Das Kapital is a current textbook.

Nationalistic tensions. As in, they’re locked in a long-term military rivalry with Algeria. Only Greece really falls into that category as far as I know.

Household, not house.

In 1900, people in the West lived with extended family members, like in essentially all other cultures. By 2000, not so much. In between it varied by socio-economic class. Your 1970’s family might include grandpa if they’re not rolling in it.

Most likely, that’s what you’re seeing on the bulk of this graph.

It’s not as simple a story, but it actually offers a reasonable explanation for the observed data,

No, no it doesn’t. I’d explain why, but that would be the exact same comment again.

ECON101

What, do you have an economics degree?

You can’t shit on other people’s education unless yours is better.

It would be bigger, which would have no surprise value.

Also if you added empire, it would look like propaganda.

But it’s actually grown. It fully didn’t exist 70 years ago.

LLMs don’t just memorise their training data, though.

Absolutely not true. We’re talking about polar opposite ends of the class spectrum, and the UCP is itself unstable because of the populist vs. establishment tension that has resulted.

I see this dichotomy at play in my everyday life, living here.

Because housing is a necessity, people are willing to pay high prices for it. Bidding wars can therefore persist even when relative supply grows, so long as credit markets enable them.

Right, that’s why I see rural houses literally falling over because nobody wants to live in them. /s

Supply and demand applies to food. It definitely applies to housing.

The central argument of this is that because the number of houses per adult is the same as 1989, the housing supply is fine. And then they have the audacity to claim other people are cherry-picking. No mention of average household size being different now, even just considering adults (nor mention of urbanisation). There’s little effort to support their own theory with numbers, either.

Not to mention, that very same graph has a noticeable dip right in the recent years where it’s become an issue. They’ve just scaled the graph so it’s not emphasised. 1989 was the last time it was so low.

This is probably more about separatism, and Alberta potentially being forced to respect Charter/human rights they don’t like. The O&G crowd is just fine with things as they are.

“It’s not what you know, it’s who you know”

Honestly just the fact you can become a coder and get paid for it is impressive, by the historical human society average.

Where are you getting that number? The 5% lead shown here is for the whole province, including rural areas. Although I guess Edmonton is in there too.