eagleinparadise

Let me guess, 80% of people here can't reason why the government would do this, completely forgetting the report Anthropic published about all the data they obtained by foreign actors getting routed to Anthropic inference.

This is good. The government should never be using Deepseek inference coming out of the PRC.

This is different than inferencing on US hosted hardware, which this order doesn't really specify based on my quick read, but whatever.

i discovered doing this in claude design and i can tell you... it's useful in a professional domain. Although I am not going to share what I'm using it for, to keep an edge in my domain ;)

I work in commercial real and even I'm going to go NIMBY mode on this lol. This property shares a large boundary to the zoo and I have a very hard time believing you won't cause an impact (noise pollution eg) to the animals next door.

Is there any evidence anywhere of a totally sound proof, unintrusive mega data center? I have not seen anything.

You're not factoring in the unused capacity of a regular car parked on the street or in a garage versus being in service of delivering transportation value..

The point of this idea is that housing is expensive to build and one way to significantly reduce that cost is by eliminating parking. Add to the cost of car ownership and the cost of living is substantially higher.

Most people still will need a car to get around. Bus rail and carpooling are not real solutions for most people in urban USA cities. Some feel offended by this notion, but it's reality.

I imagine that the concept of cities leasing waymos and being able to allocate them around to particular nodes will increase the avg. passenger capacity as well, because it can be modeled and tracked to figure out where the nodes need to be to create an effective network with high utilization.

But yes, traffic is indeed an impact.

The government can also lease vehicles with more capacity, like mini-busses if that's the policy objective. Doesn't have to be cars. The government would be in the driver's seat to drive this driverless policy as well, no pun intended

I can't tell if this person is joking or actual serious. It's sad, because this is exactly the kind of ridiculousness developers experience day to day by the general public.

No, a private citizen does not have the ability to demolish entire neighborhoods to create a new New York City with a beautiful Central Park.

Maybe if they own a home, maybe they'd donate their home to some developer to make a community garden. You and I know, that many people would love to do such a thing. But, 99% of people, would reject doing this or demand an infeasible amount of money for this.

I can't change, nor can a group of politicians change how broken the US land use and transportation policies are. But what can be done is leasing a car that can drive itself with minimal labor for $100k over 5 years that unlocked more housing to get built.

You're hilariously wrong on most of your points because just spend 5 minutes researching how CA fails to build rail. Not even worth responding to further.

I actually hate the term affordable housing because you're right, its not affordable. The wood, concrete, roof, and mechanical system costs about the same all things considered whether you're renting for $5k/mo or $500/mo. I make the same point it should be called subsidized housing too.

yes it is. it's still a cost.

but anyways, texas does not have the same cost of living issue as other metros like most of CA. that's up to local jurisdictions to do this. just like any city can build rail or bus.

Why should a tax payer in Dallas pay for your [affordable] transportation from the outskirts of Houston or OK to commute to Dallas?

tax payer sources needs to be allocated to a project that can be administered, tracked, and iterated on.

Plus the public should pay for services servicing more people than less, which your idea services a small population.

i know multiple developers with public dollars to build housing $800k-$1.2M per unit. so i don't know, maybe come up with a better solution I'd be happy to hear your idea that is realistic and will deliver more units at a lower cost.

"huge corpos" - obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Most affordable housing is owned and operated by non-profit organizations or entities, most of which are very small.

plus, the government needs to solve for affordable and workforce housing. The market can deliver plenty of market rate units if you don't be stupid and over regulate it.

As someone who works in commercial real estate, involved in about $300M of housing development, some of it affordable, i will say without any doubt that driverless cars are a very effective affordable housing policy that is not being considered or discussed by anyone.

Any public dollar that gets contributed to housing, basically adds a 50% cost factor and assume whatever it is used for will take 2-3x as long to deliver anything you can live in.

So instead, Cities should lease Waymos (or other brands), and provide these vehicles for use by affordable tenants in properties with limited parking.

Building housing with no parking is not feasible for 95% of deals. You simply won't get financing or you'll end up handing the keys back to the lender and bankrupt on the deal. Instead, if you could hand to your investors and lender an agreement which provides a car for every 3 units, that tenants have first priority to use for free (or an amount subsidized per month) up to reasonable limits, then you'd address the concern "where are people going to park and how to get to work?".

it's way more efficient than building $100 billion in transit that will take 200 years to build.

What's it cost per year to lease? $30k? That car can be full time serving 4-10 units daily? The cars can be rented to the public on off hours to offset their operating cost.

It's a lot more cost efficient and can be done TODAY, not 5 years after complicated LIHTC financing with 4 layers of other public funding, 3 years of approvals, and 2 years of construction.

Can this go docx -> html -> docx?

I work in commercial real estate, grew up in San Diego and work in the SoCal market. I am not joking that the MAIN problem is Prop 13, which came into effect 5 years after this video was made.

I deal with these owners EVERY DAY who would rather sit on crappy buildings and land because why not, it costs them nothing. They've owned forever. Literally TODAY I had an offer rejected from a Seller that would have yielded 80 units of affordable housing in an area with $150k median income, delivering completion in 2028-2029.