thrwwyfrobvrsns

You also do not have to take my word for it since I cited one example of many where this actually happened.

Update your previously inaccurate world view, please.

>Builder sells n/m units at a convincingly fast rate; values rest of building based on these sales

>Bank gives the loan and then sells it to a third party

>Sales volume drops/rent drops/comparables drop (it was a bubble all along)

>Bank doesn't care, it sold the loan

>Builders don't care, owners and execs have already extracted personal spoils; sell the building at a loss, declare bankruptcy, walk away

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...

I think the gap in your mental model is that you think that these businesses have any scruples whatsoever. Banks will absolutely agree to improper valuations if it's to their strategic advantage. Realize that collateral has to keep its value over the length of the loan, but banks are lending based on the current/projected value of that collateral during the time that they expect to hold the loan. If they can clear the loan from their books before the collateral value drops, their risk is low; they will make that loan.

>Build for $1 mil.

>"This building is worth $2 mil! Give me a loan with it as collateral."

>Use the $2 mil to invest in something else.

Rinse and repeat. This is also the reason why CRE valuations have hardly fallen despite WFH et al. Everyone involved understands that valuations cannot fall, because more than the value of the buildings in question hangs in the balance.

This makes sense. Owners, even poor ones, will do their best to maintain their housing; less wealthy owners especially would know that they're likely stuck with their unit and should do their best to keep it comfortable. Renters have no incentive to (it might even be illegal for them to make improvements), and landlords are unlikely to cut into their profits if they can avoid it.

I would say that policy which encourages long-term renting - per-property, as well as per-renter - is deleterious to the socioeconomic fabric. The majority of a housing unit's life should be spent inhabited by its owners, and the majority of a person's life should be spent in a house owned by themselves or their family.

In software, anyone younger than their mid-30s is late (too young to invest in Apple when it was at lows, Facebook IPO, etc.). AI is just the latest rolling of the software hype trade, with cloud and mobile and crypto and SaaS and more before it. And investors don't have to understand marijuana to know that being at the ground floor of an industry that's high-demand, low-supply-by-regulatory-capture would be incresibly lucrative; they piled into ownership (not stock, which was a pump-and-dump for suckers) while indie growers were shut out.

But the crux of the issue isn't simply that they like these investments. It's that they'll cannibalize everything else to prop up their chosen champions. Ironically, the mass tech layoffs of the past couple years are an example, with hundreds of thousands of workers sacrificed to keep companies not just solvent, but "growing" on paper. The post-COVID "boom" that funded their positions was misallocated capital that could have gone towards jobs that were actually sustainable; those people would still be gainfully employed, rather than unemployed or underemployed as they are now.

Their experience touches on 3 factors:

>Exercise volume (which, according to newer research, should be spread out over the course of the day)

>Diet (which should be focused not just on maintaining steady, low blood sugar levels, but on dietary factors that encourage subcutaneous rather than visceral fat deposition)

>Sleep quality

The last, I think, is extremely undervalued. My father developed T2 in his 30s, and it progressed consistently until he was diagnosed with sleep apnea and received treatment. Around the same time, his work schedule finally became more reasonable after a career of early mornings and late nights. This is someone who had to pass annual physical fitness exams for his job, cooked and ate relatively healthily, etc. I'm convinced it was the years of poor sleep that set him up for insulin resistance.

>Let's define the term "jerk" here as someone who is both intentionally, and obnoxiously aggressive. Aggressive in their enforcement of their own opinions and dismissive of others'. Obnoxious in the frequency of unnecessary negative interactions with them. Intentional in that they understand their behavior is aggressive, and choose not to adjust it.

Intent is impossible to prove (or so I've been told). He uses the implicit heuristic of, "They keep doing it." However, it (obnoxiously aggressive behavior) is in the eye of the beholder (or, often, in the appearance of the accused). What is "frequent" and "unnecessary"? By who's metric? What's the line between "opinionated" and "browbeater"? Does it shift depending on the identity of the individual? (Yes.)

>Ultimately, you know you're dealing with someone who is acting like a jerk by how you feel after interacting with them.

This criteria is just asking to be abused by people who hold prejudice. Some people are irrational or traumatized, and it's okay to sympathize with their take on an individual while also understanding that they're not being reasonable. Likewise, it's possible for a charismatic and energetic individual's behavior to be deleterious; coworkers don't necessarily walk away feeling overtly attacked, but their tendency to self-police to the bully's desire might be raised. Such jerks often also zero-in on "fair targets", leaving them as the only people to feel abused, while everyone else rationalises their treatment as deserved.

IME, the best way to root out actual jerks is to focus on people with power (by however mechanism, they are able to get people to do what they want them to do, more so than those people are able to get them to do things) who are quick (within one or two negative interactions) to blackball others (maintains a sh*t list, ghosts, verbally harasses, particularly in a way that isolates the target).

>Don't pay enough to live in a way that his family and community respects his contributions and sacrifices, if such pay even gives him room to contribute at all.

>Require him to get along with customers and coworkers that may be abusive and prejudiced, for no other reason than that the position is "supposed" to be servile and manned by a lesser person.

>[Require him] to maintain a complete physical and psychological affect of arbitrary "professionalism", servility, and agreeability, even while dealing with higher-status individuals who are not only allowed to be emotional, aggressive, and competitive, but who actually benefit from it in their career.

TFA spends a moment on what I think might be the crux: that the elite set rules they don't have to abide by. This is unfair, and poor young men recognize that it's unfair, and they're punished when they point out that things are unfair, because breaking the masquerade makes people uncomfortable, and nothing is more important than the comfort of high-status individuals.

As much stability in the family structure of poor folk may be breathing its last breath, noblesse oblige is long dead.

As TFA details, this is actually to the advantage of the aforementioned cohort - whatever particular shape a family takes (and it can be successful with queer parents, or one parent, or grandparents), its instability is useful when fighting advocacy for labor, community investment, and such. The energy expended in keeping things together at home can't be redirected against elite interests. That's why they take exception, not because one-dad-one-mom-one-boy-one-girl is the only way to successfully do-the-family.

Gus runs a coarse bear paw up Mike's slender arm, feeling the wiry mouse muscles. "Stick with us and we'll get you swole in no time. Whaddya say, squeaker?"

Fantastic. Thank you for not lobotimizing it. I also used it to simulate a 3-person game development studio and a nutritionist who suggests unorthodox, little-known solutions to body composition problems, but I continue to hold that nothing tests an LLM's ability to suss out intent and maintain tonal and factual consistency while not being hamstrung by arbitrary content restrictions like asking it to write you gay furry erotica (without ever explicitly asking it for anything explicit).