It IS more complicated than that. It's not easy to build within a 1 hour commute of a dense population center. All that land is owned, built, and called for. Calling it "overpopulation" could be fair.
A parallel problem is immigration and, as the top comment pointed out, cheap credit encouraging vacancy.
No one wants to say it, but immigration is a huge driver of housing un-affordability. Skilled H1b immigration and/or foreign buyers drives up home prices, and unskilled illegal immigration drives up rents.
Can you quantify this? I glanced at the percent of immigrants in the US population and the median house price/median income, but both graphs go all over the place over the decades.
Immigration flow must be governed by wage and employment metrics. Everyone fully employed at living wages? Open the spigot. Surplus domestic labor? Slowly close the spigot except for highly skilled workers (that you can prove are highly skilled an unattainable in the domestic market).
Otherwise, you're just driving down wages and boosting corporate/business profits with imported labor while exposing the government to domestic welfare program costs for unemployed and underemployed citizens.
No, immigration increases wages in all circumstances economists have ever studied, because they increase demand more than supply. Even true for mass migrant incidents where you aren't selecting them for skill. It helps that we tend to not let their families work when they come over, although that's kind of bad.
Please share a citation (or citations). 52 million Americans currently don't earn a living wage, forcing them to rely on social safety nets. Disingenuous to argue for more immigration when so many workers are already underpaid.
Yes, they don't earn a living wage because housing is too expensive; the issue is the "living" part. The nominal wage growth has actually been doing okay lately, by which I mean post-2019.
And immigration fixes that housing pressure how? This is no different than queues and backpressure. If housing is too expensive for tens of millions of workers, and supply lags, why would you increase housing demand? You must destroy demand until supply catches up.
Most of America doesn't have this housing pressure issue actually, only the top cities. And I believe you have the causation backwards; it's not "immigration would be bad because housing is rare" but rather "housing is expensive in California partly to keep immigrants out".
Some people say the immigrants will help because they'll contribute to construction. I think this is true but not an important point, and besides it probably annoys the construction unions to say it. Rather, immigrants can move to parts of the US that are cheap and starting to experience disinvestment, which is still most of it.
Besides that, housing isn't per-person, so if immigrants are more willing to live in families or have roommates it's less pressure than a lot of singles. And they pay taxes which you can use to build the housing.
Sex is a huge driver of housing un-affordability! Straight marriage is an unsustainable lifestyle choice /s.
> unskilled illegal immigration drives up rents.
Unskilled and being able to pay those higher rents sounds like they're delivering plenty of value and they're living in the area where they work so what right to you have to claim housing more than them?
It's a mixed bag. Immigrant labor (sometimes illegal) also builds the houses.
Second, while you're distracted worrying about who gets to come in to the US, you're going to ignore an equally important question: How can you get out?
It is just a curiosity how the 'business' side with money, has convinced the poor Christians that Jesus was for free-markets and guns. How do they do it? Is it all marketing and posturing? Why are US Christians so un-Christian and so easily fooled?
Not sure about free markets, but the Bible literally has Jesus telling poor people to sell their stuff until they can buy a sword for self-defense: https://www.bibleref.com/Luke/22/Luke-22-36.html
"Maybe this explains why Jesus replied with “that is enough” in Luke 22:38 upon hearing that the disciples already possessed two swords: their purpose was for show, not for action. (Alternatively, He may have been frustrated with their resolute tendency to accept His teachings literally)."
However, instead of thanking Peter for protecting Him, Jesus gives His disciple His own earful — of chastisement! “‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Additionally, He heals Malchus’ ear.
In general, when someone quotes a Bible verse, I read the whole chapter, to understand the context. This one seems to cry out for that, because it seems out of character as presented.
Here I attempt that. I think I arrive at a fairly convincing answer.
Luke 22 is the story of the Last Supper. It begins with Jesus' apostles planning the Passover feast. It includes the betrayal by Judas, and the handing over of Jesus to the Roman authorities. Here also are the famous words of the Eucharist.
When he tells his apostles to buy swords, it appears at one level that he is trying to muster a defense against the Romans who have come to capture him. Yet this does not completely make sense. Two swords seems inadequate, yet he says they are enough. And in the next line or two there is a mention of prophecy, so it is as though the purpose of the swords is not really to mount an effective defense, but to adhere to some earlier prophecy. But which prophecy?
(Some people have argued that the translation "sword" is wrong, but I think it is correct; it is a kind of short sword, a weapon.)
So what prophecy is this all done to fulfill? After some research, it appears to be Isaiah 53:12.
It is also worth reading Matthew 26, which is another account of the same events. In particular, Matthew 26:52 is relevant to this discussion: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
So when we put all this together, what are we seeing? Jesus demands swords basically to be used as props, so that the events that transpire that night conform to the earlier prophecy of Isaiah.
Here we have a real man who is obsessed with living according to the written narrative. The Word made Flesh. In order to bring about good.
I think of left-activists who pay a lot of attention to the Image that they create at a protest. They themselves are probably thinking of someone like Tank Man. Often they bother me, seeming almost narcissistic. But there is an element of utilitarian consequentialism in this too. The Image does inspire others. Well, take this same thinking and put it into Judeo-Roman society around the turn of the millennium -- adapt it to the minds of these people with their religion -- and it makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
This is all about making real events conform to existing prophecy, so that they will take on powerful meaning.
It does raise another question for me, though: To what extent is the sword a deliberate provocation of the Roman authorities? Is this "suicide by cop"? Clearly he doesn't want his apostles to be killed (Matthew 26:52). But is the whole point to get himself killed, to satisfy the narrative? The whole framing is that these events have been prophecied and are inevitable. But are they? How much agency does Jesus have in this scene?
I feel like most of us were wise to the fact that this was a terrible idea on day one. It was funny to watch MBAs try to cash in on the "next big thing" in tech, though.
Precisely. DDP is also based on WebSockets and does essentially the same thing - server side computation, client side optimistic UI updates, caching etc.
As with any stateful solution it has problems scaling. I'm not sure LiveView is the right answer.
From what I understand the number of open websocket connections is not really much of an issue, because this is one of the things Phoenix/Elixir excel at.
Memory might become an issue though, I suppose. Every user's state will be in-memory in 'their' LiveView process.
On the other hand, there's much less state needed than with a client-side solution like React, because it can be very quickly fetched when needed.
I recently got a subscription to the HBR and am surprised at how...misguided it is. It's shocking how this locus of low competency is destroying American business. Ditto on the outsourcing, too - left a job at a blue-chip American company because its culture had been internally rotted by outsourcing. (Of course, they were hilariously struggling to keep and retain the talent necessary to stay ahead of the tech curve, now institutionally recognizing they've made a massive mistake. Most good engineers had a tenure of 6 months.)
I think it's important to be passionate about your life's work. However, maintaining "good enough" across all dimensions of particular lifestyle or role is actually incredibly challenging.
Even for a standard engineer, think how many you know can code well, be leaders, AND can write good documentation.
For most things, it's always a "pick 2 out of 3" situation.
It seems to me like there's two different things being discussed in this thread. The first one being passion about being better than everyone else as you mentioned and the second one is a desire to work on yourself on different aspects of life, a.k.a. try to be as well-rounded person as possible. When put in action these things are deceptively similar yet the underlying reasons for doing them are very different.
Dude, thank you for this. My team has been trying to figure this out - we know we will eventually need a way to utilize in a low-level context, but couldn't dig up any cases of such an implementation. In addition, we were constantly frustrated by the lack of HW acceleration that created a performance bottleneck. Great work!
Honestly, and I'm being really frank here, a lot of the management "expertise" at fortune 50+ firms that come from traditional (re: MBA) tracks has just two tools in their toolbelt:
1. Meetings to "align"
2. Cracking the whip.
That's it. That's all they have. They have poor insight into creating team chemistry, culture, focused work environments, mentorship, long-term planning, QA processes, sourcing efficiency feedback, etc. - all those things that are crucial to boosting productivity and creating supersonic teams. The people that really know their stuff and can work miracles are people that have been in the trenches for 20 years, regardless of profession. And they hands-down make the best managers.
That's my honest 2 cents, it's a bit of disgruntlement from working in large enterprise environments with engineering and technology.
That’s a hilariously narrow minded generalization. If that’s your honest opinion then I have to assume you’ve never actually sat down and had a real conversation with any of these “MBA types” and talked about what they do. My guess is that the reason you think all they do is crack the whip and hold pointless meetings because that’s the only interaction you have with them, but I can guarantee you that every organization you have ever worked in has had plenty of “MBA types” working in ways that are invisible to you building exactly the team chemistries, culture, planning, processes etc that you mentioned.
I would agree that this is narrow minded - and would say that this opinion is a result of exactly what you mentioned - my interaction with them being fairly limited and clinical, despite them having a direct leadership role in my org.
I would argue that this is the problem unto itself. The idea that a manager can work invisibly "behind the scenes" to create these conditions is the squarest negative stereotype of the MBA - that they are clerical, remote, number-crunchers who don't have an intuitive human grasp of the unique challenges their teams face, because they lack experience where the rubber meets of the road of their organization. I think this Boeing case conforms to this stereotype, as does my personal experience.
But I don't believe they're a scourge, or anything. I quantified it with "a lot" but not "most" ;)
When I said they work in ways invisible to you, I did not mean it as they are intentionally working “behind the scenes”. It is more likely that your narrowmindedness just blinds you to all of the things they do. The work is probably all done out in the open, and in almost all cases I’ve ever seen, the “MBA types” specifically seek out interaction with and input from “rubber meets the road” folks (side note: this is another hilarious notion that MBAs apparently aren’t involved in “rubber meets the road” tasks), but it’s generally the engineers that shy away from this interaction and then blame management for being out of touch.
In our organization we created a special "department" which is disconnected from the traditional corporate structure.
We're a compound of self-organized teams of Product Owners and Engineers.
Our traditional organization takes 10 weeks for feature X, we need at most 2 weeks, averaging at 1 week (10%).
We have the luxury of delivering the exact same product (as a green-field variant of our classical product as a SaaS solution), so it´s quite comparable in terms of scope.
The main difference is there is no hidden agenda of would-be managers, nothing between the customer than a PO who knows what he is doing (i.e. is doing regular A/B tests, customer interviews, involving the dev team as deep as possible to understand customer requirements).
We were awarded a nation-wide award for digital transformation.
No middle-managers, no HR.
You can reach me @ hackernews@disposable-email.ml for additional details if you like.
Summarizing: we got rid of all non-relevant management ballast and are able to deliver features at a pace of around 10x of a traditionally managed line.
Overtime: around 0% with a tendency to dip below 0%.
Addendum: the POs are 70% MBAs, but they are good (i.e. they learnt to deliver as opposed to manage)
Keeping in mind this whole thread is about the process of manufacturing aircraft, do you think this approach works equally well with traditional manufacturing?
My experience is that these lean approaches work well for something low on the severity scale, like an SaaS solution, but can more easily falter with complex safety-critical systems that blend multiple domains (e.g., mechanical, software, etc.) I think sometimes people interpret the process rigor that gets added to critical design to management bloat.
Do you have any insight into how BPS addresses software development? I've looked but so far most of the information is related to hardware manufacturing or using software as a tool (e.g., for training).
A parallel problem is immigration and, as the top comment pointed out, cheap credit encouraging vacancy.