The issue with them is that the loans to build the properties are socialised, so if the other members can not pay the debt, the entire loan is the responsibility of those members who can.
Also, the incentives of a cheaper than market rate flat, means that corruption and nepotism is rampant in those buildings.
This is purely anecdotal, but I find that the buildings with professional management and purely renting tenants, look better and seem more well kept, compared to the smaller "Andelsforeninger" where its a volunteer management team trying to run it.
> Also, the incentives of a cheaper than market rate flat, means that corruption and nepotism is rampant in those buildings.
Maybe there's some middle ground between socialized housing that incentivizes people to take advantage of overly cheap housing, and a 100% capitalist USA style housing market where lots of people are 1 missed paycheck away from being homeless.
Maybe there is, but human history proves we can't easily reach a equilibrium where everyone has it equally good, due to human greed, envy, cronyism and corruption, making any kind of equality just a fairytale utopia.
So we just bounce between extremes because as always, few people strive have it good and the rest get screwed over in order to pay for the privileges of the select few. There will always be haves and have-nots, no matter how many thumbs the government puts on the scales to try to balance things out for everyone which only breaks things for the worst as they distort economic reality.
Meanwhile from the numbers I gathered, despite the "evil capitalism", statistically by most metrics, Americans enjoy the highest purchasing power for home ownership in the developed western world by a large margin. So Americans love to complain too much, but the truth is by the numbers, most of the world has it much worse than they do.
1. Demographia International Housing Affordability | Lower median multiple = higher affordability (2025 Edition)
Singapore 4.2
United States 4.8
Ireland 5.1
Canada 5.4
United Kingdom 5.6
New Zealand 7.7
Australia 9.7
2. World Population Review: Housing Affordability Index | Higher index = higher purchasing power (2024 Data)
United States 3.3
Denmark 2.1
Belgium 2.1
Ireland 1.8
Luxembourg 1.8
Norway 1.7
Sweden 1.7
Finland 1.7
Spain 1.7
Netherlands 1.7
Germany 1.5
Switzerland 1.5
3. Numbeo Property Prices Index | Lower ratio = higher affordability (2025 Mid-Year)
United States 3.44
Germany 8.5
United Kingdom 8.71
Italy 9.04
Canada 9.45
France 9.89
Japan 11.34
I haven't dug into how they average these numbers out, but Singapore is especially interesting because their housing market is closer to just NY, SF or LA than it is to the general average of the USA.
In that sense they're doing really well. Actually their system is the hybrid market/subsidized one I theorized about above.
That's why Singapore is only top on one ranking and absent in others while the US is consistently at the top of housing affordability in most rankings, probably because US is a lot bigger than just NY, LA and SF.
I firmly disagree that history proves this. The history of certain countries, certain economic systems, and certain systems of social organization have proven inequitable, but most people are unfamiliar with the many systems that have proven workable, but have not provided for a small hierarchical cadre of people with coercive power over others. It's not surprising that this sort of thing is not taught within a capitalist or statist system, but they certainly do exist, and have throughout human history, which is much longer than the last 500 years or so existence of hierarchical states and capitalism.
See David Graeber's The Dawn of Everything for a deep dive into some of the many successful systems of human societal organization.
Can you prove those numbers lie? Because then what's the point of science and statistics? Should we just argue based on vibes then? Where does that get us when we start the conversation with the assumption that all data is always false?
I kind of agree and don't. You could say HTTP+DOM is the API, we're already there. But it lacks the structure and a more explicit regularity (in part because it's meant for human consumption, not programming). And if you were to describe the whole protocol (including CSS and JS as they can change ordering, even content, of what's shown) it's incredibly more complicated than the equivalent, distilled representation.
There are efforts going back at least fifteen years to extract ontologies from natural language [0] and HTML structure [1].
Spend any amount of time, reading the implementation of powerfull algorithms (A* search, Bubble sort), and you will realize that the power is in the idea, not the feeble attempt at coding it in PHP, Go, JS or what ever.
Clear and concise thinking, its the first time I have read someone cut through the hype and argue logically for what the next incremental steps are in making progress down this path of LLMs creating technology.
The first steam engines were too expensive and underpowered, the first cars were deatch traps when they actually ran. Dont lul yourself into the dream of a static world.
We see the wave coming, I will look for a way to surf it. Don't be the stunned sceptic waiting to feel the crush.
For one, I have started using the tools that are available right now, to increase my productivity and intuition with what the new capabilities are.
I think the original author is on to something, about how the structure of our codebases will change, and therefore our preferred frameworks will change as well.
The frameworks we use today, assume that the codebase is DRY[1], and that a human will verify the workings of the codebase. A human will write a single test, for a single component and verify that the test functions correctly - then leave it in there, for successive runs to prove there has been no regression to the code quality.
But as the author points out - that doesn't lend itself to truly parallel programming. Because as one programmer/agent changes a central component that another programmer/agent also changed in the same release cycle, merge conflicts arise and grown into architectural conflicts and grow into team conflicts.
I see how accepting more duplication, can lead to more parallelization. I mostly cared about keeping code DRY because its hell to refactor a codebase with 5 implementations of the same thing. But if I am just instructing an LLM to make the change, I dont care how many files it has to visit - its still the same single instruction from me.
So I will think long and hard about how tooling needs to improve, and how frameworks need to change, to be part of this new paradigm. Similar to how Object Oriented Programming optimised for human logic rather than cpu cycles, the time of LLMs will optimise for testability and parallelisation rather than gpu cycles, or DRY paradigmes.
DRY is also about coherence not just refactorability. If you have multiple different behaviors for the "same" thing then your customers are going to think you suck.
This is wild! If you want, this could become a great contender to the RPA products out there. I know people who are trying to build AI for RPA, but this seems like a much more solid approach.
Let me know if you are interested in turning this into a startup, happy to direct you to some relevant people.
It may be possible for you later in life. Most bootstrappers have worked up some wealth via traditional methods like savings, home equity, inheritance, and freelance/consulting work.
VC money and accelerators are primarily for people who dont have the wealth to bootstrap, but who are young and willing to take investors on early.
