> Lowering the rent to fill their building reduces the value of that building
This must just indicate that the model used to value the building is wrong, right?
I'd think insofar the value of the building is tied to the rental price, that value should naturally be a function of the revenue that the building can be expected to generate, which in turn is be a function not only of the chosen rent price but the likelihood of someone renting at that price. Why would a building that offers its units at $N per unit but can only fill half of them at that price be worth more than the same building filling all of its units at $N/2 per unit?
I suppose there's some wiggle room to account for the relative uncertainty in those two cases. But fundamentally the rental price is a choice whereas the value of the building is (or ought to be) based on a combination of the qualities of the property itself and what the market is willing to bear.
I hadn't thought about this in a long time. Looks like her lab is still going strong doing research at the intersection of biology and robotics on whisker-based sensing:
Is there a way for a small individual investor to "exchange" shares in stock without doing a "sell A + buy B" for which the sale of A is subject to capital gains tax?
Some cursory googling points me to "exchange funds", but those seem to be designed for accredited investors.
The advice I see for someone like me who wants to "re-balance" is just to change allocations for any new investments, but I'm wondering if there's an effective way to shift existing allocations without incurring a tax penalty...
Most small investors have money only in retirement accounts which don't pay taxes. Now you should mostly not play with that money (just put in good funds which rebalance for you) but taking 5% to play is fine. Just don't lose it all and then take another 5% until it is gone.
outside of that just rebalance only every other year is your best plan - but it means only buying things you can hold that long.
I started reading it to my elementary-aged kids as a bedtime story! We're only on part 7/100, and I suspect we'll be too deep for them before long, but at least or now they're really enjoying it.
Behind each "tale" lies a mathematical idea: from counting numbers and odd and even numbers, to geometry with lines and circles, to group theory, waves, frequencies, etc.
Behind the story words, here are the branches of mathematics explored in each chapter: 1/ Numbers, 2/ Geometry, 3/ Pre-Algebra, 4/ Calculus and Analysis, 5/ Algebra, 6/ Probability, 7/ Logic, 8/ Complex Numbers and Higher Dimensions
9/ Mathematical Applications to Physics, 10/ Further Applications, including AI/Machine Learning, Music, and more.
Along with the tales, I am planning to write about the underlying ideas for each one in much greater detail.
I think the point is that this only works in the aggregate. Individuals in a group/organization/society can make small positive decisions that improve the likelihood that any individual in that same group will get "lucky".
There's a sort of "freeloader" problem, though, which is that the ones who get "lucky" don't themselves have to be making positive choices. In fact, being a selfish individual in a group of generous ones can be an easy way to get ahead - as long as you can get away with it without being noticed or punished.
Human civilization feels so much more fragile to me since I realized how much we owe our technological progress to the accumulated effects of biological processes over geological timescales. Fossil fuels seem like the most obvious part of this story. If we had to start over "from scratch", would it even be possible? Or have we already so thoroughly exhausted the low-hanging energy stores that a second "industrial revolution" would be effectively impossible if our present civilization collapsed deeply enough?
I wasn't aware that concentrated stores of iron are also an important part of this story!
> Or have we already so thoroughly exhausted the low-hanging energy stores that a second "industrial revolution" would be effectively impossible if our present civilization collapsed deeply enough?
There's plenty of coal left, and we will likely never exploit it, because solar is getting so cheap.
Also, despite long prophecies, peak oil never arrived either. So it doesn't look like we are running out of that stuff.
Ever since I saw that episode I've felt like it's inevitable that something like this will become commonplace. If I had a product like this that actually worked as imagined, and the full data pipeline was under my complete control, I could think of a dozen reasons why I'd want to use it. If we take it for granted that this is coming whether we want it or not (and I'm not saying we necessarily must, but it's worth pondering)... is there a way to design the technology, and cultivate new social norms, such that we end up with something that's a net positive rather than a dystopian panopticon? I haven't been able to answer this for myself, at least not yet.
(Even setting the social repercussions aside, though, Zuck/Meta being involved is a dealbreaker for me.)
This must just indicate that the model used to value the building is wrong, right?
I'd think insofar the value of the building is tied to the rental price, that value should naturally be a function of the revenue that the building can be expected to generate, which in turn is be a function not only of the chosen rent price but the likelihood of someone renting at that price. Why would a building that offers its units at $N per unit but can only fill half of them at that price be worth more than the same building filling all of its units at $N/2 per unit?
I suppose there's some wiggle room to account for the relative uncertainty in those two cases. But fundamentally the rental price is a choice whereas the value of the building is (or ought to be) based on a combination of the qualities of the property itself and what the market is willing to bear.