The responses so far say so much about the HN audience. As a mobile app designer, developer, I'll throw in some higher level tools that I love:
- Figma
- Slack
- VS Code
- DataGrip (most JetBrains tools really)
- Photoshop
- 1Password
- Lightroom (Classic, of course)
- UBlock Origin
- Gusto (makes my life easier as a startup founder)
That’s a super neat idea! I have a feeling the inevitable solution to this need will be a combo of a tech like Apple’s Center Stage and some sort of eye-focusing alteration to the image, like a live deep fake of yourself (just the eyes). Software-only means widespread adoption.
FaceTime actually did the eye adjustment thing for a bit, but they disabled it. Not sure why, it seemed to work okay. Maybe it freaked people out though.
They need a firm launch date because of the cascading research windows already allocated, but there are 344 single points of failure, and it will be virtually impossible to fixed once launched. I'm terribly excited for the advancements this telescope will bring, but I'm very nervous about the launch and deployment.
It seems like they could start scheduling windows for say June 2022, and then if it happens to be ready before that, have a lottery for slots that you have to use within a day or two of getting the slot. So basically for the folks who just happen to be ready to go and what they're looking at isn't time dependent.
Since the telescope has to always point its shielding toward the sun, won't there be certain windows of opportunity to view things depending on where they are located in relation to the sun?
Agents and homeowners have been taking photos of homes for sale for decades, and all sorts of private info has leaked this way. I’m in the industry on the tech side and I’ve seen photos of people naked in mirrors, signed documents, children, hobbies/interests, framed photos saying things like “Joseph Edward Smith - born Aug 6, 2010”, bills and more.
This technology makes it more likely for the volume of leaked data to increase, and the photo resolutions give more data per image, but agents have been trained to stage houses for a long time and should be expected to handle this. Blame the agent.
Although the tech certainly has room for improvement. All it takes is for someone to sue Zillow for exposing their private images online for automatic blurring technology to magically appear.
> All it takes is for someone to sue Zillow for exposing their private images online for automatic blurring technology to magically appear.
Honestly, I would expect such an event to lead to an indemnity clause magically appearing in their future contracts - it's the lowest effort option which gives sufficient defense.
Beyond assisting with contractual matters and negotiation, I feel this is the last value proposition of real estate agents.
We've had videos and virtual tours for a long time. I no longer need someone to show me around a physical space.
Making the process of searching for - and hopefully purchasing - your "dream home" as smooth and safe as possible is arguably the best way for these agents to retain their jobs as we enter an age where much of what they do can be automated.
I can see having the virtual tours as a first pass to avoid needing to drive over, but they can't replace a physical tour at all. There's no sense of scale or size in the virtual tour, as images on a screen feel much different than being somewhere. You can't tell if the house smells of mildew. You can't have stand in the kitchen while somebody walks upstairs to see how much sound carries through the floorboards.
Definitely agree. It's kind of hilarious when you see the same room in two different pictures, taken from different angles. The aspect ratio of the furniture looks completely different.
There's also a trend of photoshopping furniture into an image, which I cannot stand. The entire point of photographing a room with furniture is to give a sense of the scale in it. That simply doesn't happen with photoshopped furniture, because the relative size is determined by the scaling of the images, rather than the actual size of the room/furniture. The photoshopped images should be viewed with extreme suspicion, and only the barest hair's breadth away from false advertising.
I agree the FOV takes some getting used to, to mentally adjust for, but I like that you can see so much more of the room that way. In listings without the super wide lens, you just see a little corner of the room in each photo.
Your comment reads as you don’t need a realtor as a buyer — and I agree to an extent. I always thought that the service was provided for the seller
Things our agent did I would not have done or not done properly on top of the paperwork and legal advice:
- got us in touch with home stylist and a photographer who were great
- had a phone book of prospective customers looking for a place like ours
- followed up with people who were interested and arranged a second showing
About the commissions, either it is very regional or we were lucky but we agreed on a flat fee plus some percent if and only if the price goes above some target.
I will also add the VERY, VERY, VERY important step of being a layer of communication between you and the buyer. With that relay, no statements made by you about the state or condition of your home would ever be directly seen by the buyer. That's probably why realtors have those discussions with sellers and their agents via telephone as well.
Like many other professionals, their services are only valueable if you value your time.
I don’t want to become an expert in real estate. I just want a place that matches my needs, has the right mojo, and fits my budget. I have time to see 3 places.
When that’s you, suddenly realtors (or a bored spouse with lots of free time) are crazy valuable.
Exactly. Would you rather go with the advice of an expert who’s been doing this full time for 10 years, or the advice of an enthusiast who spent 3h/week for a few months (yourself) for something so important?
I thought my current house was garbage when I saw it on a virtual tour and only went to view it to amuse my agent who claimed he had found my house. I was skeptical but there’s a lot that doesn’t translate and my agent was right.
I disagree. I found a lot of value in my realtor learning what we were looking for in a house and only showing me the ones he thought we would like. Some things can't be reduced to search terms.
Now, whether or not that's worth the high percentage they skim off the top is a whole 'nother question.
I often find the process of mapping jargon takes one about halfway to expertise in many matters. Learning the search terms, their nuances, and their flexibility is work. There is value in someone who can translate my rambling into those terms.
> Now, whether or not that's worth the high percentage they skim off the top is a whole 'nother question.
This isn't how it works where I live. As a buyer, you pay no commission. The seller pays his agent a commission and your agent negotiates with the seller for a portion of that commission.
> I no longer need someone to show me around a physical space.
Yes you do. Sellers get to be picky. Especially in Covid. They aren't letting in looky-loos. At bare minimum you need to have an agent and pre-approval as a buyer so you come across as serious and interested, or you aren't getting into homes right now (speaking of Bay Area).
And if you aren't going in person, you shouldn't be submitting offers.
I'm shocked Realator's even exist today. That shock is 10 fold for what they financially make too. I imagine a few percent of the cheerleaders/pretty boys make a lions share though?
Eight courses, and a easy test, and you are set to go. Two years experience under a Broker (CA law) was passed a few years. (The experience bill was heavily lobbied by Realator's lobby, and sadily--Gov. Brown signed it. During the hearing 1 example of inexperience was noted as the reason for the change in requirements. A four year degree was all that was required before Realtor's got their mitts on a bill.
The result has been less competition among brokers, while their job has gotten easier. Easier in terms of digital hone showings, and all their other tech being thrown at them.
The biggest schmoozer, or cheerleader, are usually the only one's making a very comfortable living?
I never thought I would say this, but I'm waiting for the profession to be gone.
It's just an added expense to overpriced homes. 6% on a 2 million house is crazy, and I'm even a fan of paying full commissions.
If there is human/human interaction and mediation and negotiation over hundreds of thousands of dollars there is always going to be a human in the middle. Always.
No-scope is a gaming term for sniping someone from a sniper rifle without zooming in using the scope. Very difficult to do, and this is a weird application of the phrase. 230 about to be “nuked” would probably be more applicable. It implies destroyed by pushing a button. No effort involved and immediate annihilation.
I don’t understand this new fascination with gutting 230. 230 protects the speech of the users, since the platform isn’t held responsible for what they say. Make YouTube liable for its users content, and now the whole system is moderated to remove any polarizing content. This means politicians like Trump will NEVER have a platform for their message. Why would they intentionally vote to de-amplify their own voices?
Section 230 means that you can't be sued for something I say.
But it doesn't just apply to FB and Twitter. It applies to HN. It applies to Github repos and Discord channels and every person and device connected to the Internet in the US.
Get rid of Section 230 and then you can be sued for what other people say.
Which would pretty much kill all but the biggest platforms, because only they could afford the liability.
Section 230 has been protecting free speech on the Internet for 25 years. We should keep doing that.
See here[0] for more details. The title is snarky, but it has lots of good information.
I think this experience makes their opinion more valuable actually. Maybe they should have put in a disclaimer, but I always assume posters on HN have distinct insight based on relevant experience in the topic. At least this person provides a nice counter-argument to the general trend in these comments. I appreciate it even if I disagree.
That’s a variation on extreme ironing, “an extreme sport in which people take ironing boards to remote locations and iron items of clothing. According to the Extreme Ironing Bureau, extreme ironing is "the latest danger sport that combines the thrills of an extreme outdoor activity with the satisfaction of a well-pressed shirt” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ironing)
