There must be a disconnect between viewers and critics, because viewership declined over its entire run. Compare that with a true masterpiece like Breaking Bad which saw viewership consistently increase over the course of its run.
Pretty rare for any show to increase in viewership year over year. Breaking Bad had monumental word of mouth towards the end. Better call Saul dropped year over year but was still fantastic.
Northern CO here, my daughter had big plans of finding someplace to live with 2-4 of her friends after graduating high school, but they all quickly decided that was not at all workable due to housing costs.
I would argue that it's worse now in high COL TX metros than it is in the bay area, because even if home values are still lower in Austin, for example, Texas property taxes are brutal compared to CA and have increased dramatically [in line with property value appreciation], which Prop 13 doesn't allow to happen in CA.
Housing cost complaints are dramatically overstated on HN because SF and Seattle are dramatically overrepresented. Housing has definitely become more expensive on average in much of the country over the last few years, but it's not as crazy an issue in most places as it is in the places many HNers live, and there are plenty of places where housing is actually still quite cheap (for example, most of the Midwest).
> there are plenty of places where housing is actually still quite cheap (for example, most of the Midwest).
The housing market in Madison, Wisconsin is crazy. I sold my house 8 years ago, and now its estimated value is 70% higher than my selling price. I know a lot of people in the area who are despondent about the prices.
Madison is exceptional for a midwestern city. It has a large and excellent state university. Epic is based there and most of FAANG has outposts there to draw the CS talent. Additionally, it is the state capitol which means a lot of companies providing services to the state. Aside from all that, it is a pretty picturesque location for the Midwest, with the two big lakes and surrounded by rolling hills. Something you won't find in Urbana-Champaign for comparison.
When people talk about low cost of living in the Midwest they generally mean more depressed areas. I live in a very low cost of living rural (15k ppl) community in Illinois, with half an acre on a lake in a 3000 sq foot house where the mortgage is only 250k. Of course, if I ever lose my remote job, I'd never be able to find work. Most of the people here work at one of 2 medium-sized factories or the hospital. The median household income is only $40k.
The town I live in is a far more common case for the rural Midwest.
there are areas where housing is still cheap (rural Iowa, Arkansas, etc.), but they're not areas where there are jobs so it doesn't matter how cheap it is
almost any major city these days housing is much more expensive than it used to be relative to income
It’s also quite bizarre to read these endless complaints, because by definition roughly 1 percent of communities must be in the 99th percentile of communities in terms of unaffordability.
Edit: That can never change either, in aggregate, so it’s literally futile to complain about it in general terms.
Irrelevant, they explicitly structured the for-profit as subservient to the non-profit and its goal of “safe AGI to benefit all humanity”. Investors knew that structure and charter when they invested.
While we don't know the specifics of the arrangement (under what circumstances Microsoft can back out of the deal), I'm sure they can make it challenging for OpenAI to continue operating at scale when they're reliant on funding (most of the 10+ billion dollars hasn't been transferred yet) and access to unlimited compute. This makes them stakeholders even if they don't have seats on the non-profit's board.
Microsoft obviously doesn't want to pull the plug on OpenAI, which is why they're pressuring the board to rehire Sam. If the board was truly independent and didn't answer to any other stakeholders, why would they even be talking to Sam right now?
I like to think if you invest $10s of billions, you get to at least have an opportunity to discuss major items like this, even if you don’t have legal veto.
I don't get why this line is repeated so much. Verbal agreements and reassurances in the realm of foreign policy are essentially worthless, especially when you're dealing with democratically elected leaders. Unless you have a formal agreement the next president or prime minister has to abide by, there is no continuity.
This expansion argument also ignores that Eastern European countries are joining NATO of their own accord.
Btw Russia and the US also signed the Budapest memorandum to respect Ukraine's sovereignty.
But the president of the US doesn't have the power to make treaties with another nation. See the league of nations for an important example of that. So that treaty is also worthless when it comes to the US.
So if a verbal agreement is worthless & a treaty is worthless, how does one negotiate with the US?
I'm unsure how France's presidential system works and what authority he may have.
65% of Brazil's energy is coming from hydropower, which is extremely reliable, but geography dependent. When people make that statement, they're usually referring to wind + solar, which are intermittent.
If I recall correctly, being imprisoned during trial makes conviction more likely and sentencing tends to be harsher. Seeing the defendant in prison garb biases the judge and the jury.
Because interest rates were historically low for the entirety of YT’s existence until recently. You’re seeing this happen with multiple platforms and companies suddenly caring way more about being profitable.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to explain this using interest rates. I mean, for sure, low interest rates made it easy to collect a lot of capital and lure users into a "free" service. It doesn't explain though why one would find this an acceptable and ethical form of doing business in the first place.
It was clear from day one of low interest rates that those wouldn't stick around forever. This business model is a pile of s** that breaks itself.
It appears as if the most 'successful' business people actually don't think a lot about any kind of sustainability in their decisions. It's just about quick growth. And when push comes to shove, they wine that they aren't able to pay the bills anymore, because of 'evil' users who don't want to watch their crappy ads.
