nora4

What people make is ultimately what demand & supply dictate. On the other hand, for one-off cases where the market is super small, people make what they can negotiate. Of course, even in that one-off cases there is data about the pay of superstar within previous movies/shows/engineering orgs to use as an anchor.

But what about your analysis which is based on unit economics. How does that tie in? (because it is of course relevant) By the fact that if you hire lots of super stars by market price, but your unit economic does not allow the operation to be profitable, you will eventually have to shut the operation down. Good bye super stars and whole operation!

See the references I give below; if he is talking about general trends in AI and is giving an estimate of 7 or 8 years for emergence of AGI, where is he basing it on? Is he basing the estimate on unseen breakthroughs (i.e. unknown unknowns) to occur within that 7 or 8 years frame, or is he talking about current DL techniques pushed to their limits? For the former, nobody can make a reasonable estimate (nature of unknown unknowns) and for the latter, most experts in the field seem to agree that that current techniques do not lead to AGI. (Like have you seen how hard it is do things like visual question answering (VQA) or text summarization tasks? These are much much simpler than AGI but like AGI do not lend themselves easily to supervised learning.)

I assumed akvadrako downvoted that since the vote and the comment appeared very close to each other and both right after my comment. But of course, I surely could be mistaken.

And anyways, downvoting is not a big deal and they have the absolute right to do so. It's just that stating why you disagreed or downvoted would be helpful.

Except for Elon Musk, who with all due respect, I believe does not count as an informed person in DL.

It really bothers me that he (who is clearly an excellent entrepreneur and human being in general) makes such strong statement on a topic he is clearly not an expert in and is so vocal about it too. Given the amount of influence and number of online followers he has, I find this irresponsible.

To summarize your points AirBnB has these effects: 1) more supply & cheaper options for travelers/short-term renters 2) higher rent and less supply for long term renters. 3) More income for property owners (A more varied demand) 4) Less business for hotels/established incumbents.

It's a very hard tradeoff. I can't tell how to argue for one side or the other. Should we use regulation (or enforce existing ones) to help the long-term renters at the expense of travelers? Or should we let free unregulated market roll? It's not clear-cut case for me either way.

So the question is are laws sacred things that should never be broken. I don't think so. I think there are cases that people should break the law so we progress.

In other words, our laws are not the word of God (so to say), they are the word of men (genderless ofc). Good things can happen when you break them and demonstrate how much value can be unlocked or how much a better society we can become without them. By ignoring the laws you ultimately can become a force for change of the law. Those laws usually are there for a reason, of course. But the point is that sometimes those reasons are antiqued or irrational.

I don't know about the case of AirBnB and zoning laws. Don't know enough to have an opinion there.

Hotels/hostels are not supposed to not list on AirBnB I thought. (I stayed at a very low-end hotel booked from AirBnB in, and I was very disappointed. When I book an AirBnB I hope for a real host, conversation, see how they live and what I got was a stupid hotel... but I digress.)

They can choose to delist the properties that have a separate channel, by crawling the web, or just querying google, query, etc. to find out if the listing is just a shell. Or they can look at the messages to see if the host suggests book instead on this website. (That of course doesn't prevent direct email communication through which the same outcome transpires. It just catches the most naive showroom cases.)

Very good points; I'm in general though space skeptic in the following sense. Human race as a whole always seeks more, bigger, further, faster as solution its problems. I don't think space is the solution to our earthly problems.

Maybe 1000 years from now, people look at us and say god damn it. I wish they had stayed there and learned how to live in earth well. We are now speared all over the place and we all hate hate each other; and just right now I hear Martian went ahead and annexed Venus and they also seem to be interfering in Andromeda elections.

I wonder if they start somehow "cracking down" on that. For now, it might not be worth it but eventually?