A $1.8mm 30 year fixed rate mortgage is about $12k per month at today’s rates. That wouldn’t include taxes and insurance, just the principal and interest.
It also doesn't include that a $1.8MM mortgage usually implies a $2.25MM house that you just put down $450k on.
The median price of American homes is $400k. In California it's $860k. In the Bay Area it's $1.5MM. You can get a house in the Bay Area for under $1.8MM, but you need a $360k down payment, and you will likely face a tradeoff between good schools, safe neighborhoods, being within walking distance of anything, and having a nice sized house. Outside of NYC, these numbers are the upper echelon. If you disagree, you have very expensive taste masquerading as requirements.
On that point about home sizes, Americans are frequently surprised how much less space Europeans are fine living in.
You are confusing 6k and 12k mortgages: the former is to buy a modest house today in most decent areas in the US. The latter is to buy a modest house in Bay Area, where a large fraction of hacker news users reside.
A “modest” house to me is a median house: around 2k sqft, run-of-the-mill construction, cheap materials, 8 feet ceilings, <10k sqft lot.
How do you ensure the same user always gets the same treatment, even on subsequent visits to the site? You need the bucket sizes to be consistent for consistent hashing.
> Marxists, after having removed all of the bullshit from Marxism, discovered that there was nothing left but liberalism.
This is not true. Marxism deals with much more metaphysical questions than liberalism does. The issue is not just that some people are poor and others are rich and that that's unfair. That has been true since time immemorial, but Marx's object of inquiry was specifically the economic system brought into being by the industrial revolution and other material changes. That system by its nature produces specific classes of people (proletariats and bourgeoisie), and Marxism is really about an analysis of those classes and the ethical questions brought about by their interaction.
So for example a big issue Marx is concerned with that is totally absent from liberalism is this concept of 'alienation'[1], whereby a worker becomes wholly estranged, in an artificial way, from the product that he creates; and whereby labour, normally a self-realizing and delightful undertaking, becomes instead commoditized as merely a means to existence.
Yea this is a good point. Same with "lean forward" during skiing. It's only really helpful for someone who already knows why you need to lean forward (and is able to do so) but just had a momentary lapse.
Something I've come to realize is when someone gives advice, especially career related, it's usually directed at a young version of themselves rather than to anyone else. The motivation, even in subconscious, is usually therapeutic from the standpoint of the advice-giver rather than helpful to the advice-receiver. It doesn't mean that it can't still be helpful, but it should be understood in that light.
I swear this problem only ever causes confusion because the original wording is ambiguous about what the host's motivations are. Once you realize the host is trying to get you to lose and knows what's behind each door and must open a door, then it's clearer that you should switch.
The host’s motives don’t matter at all. If the first choice is a goat, then the host does not have any choice about the door to open, so their intent is irrelevant. If the first choice is a goat, then the outcome is the same regardless of the door the host chooses.
The host does not really have any agency here.
The rules are intended to confuse people and trick them into thinking both remaining doors have the same probability. I can see how this would favour the house on average because once people committed and chose a door, they are invested and would tend not to change their mind. But the host’s actions have no effect. And even then, this might be an intuition, but does not provide any understanding as to what exactly happens.
I'm not sure if you would call it 'agency' but the host is following it's own specific door-picking policy - a policy which will never result in a car being revealed. It is precisely this policy and no other which makes the contestant switch the correct move. But the original wording doesn't say that - it just says the host opens a door and it happens to have a goat behind it.
You're missing the point. The anti-competitive behaviour isn't harmful against other search engines - it's against companies in the other domains where Google can leverage its nigh total search engine dominance to push its other products, e.g. Google Flights and Google Shopping. How is a flight booking service supposed to fairly compete with Google Flights when Google owns the top of the funnel where users go to search for these services? It's exactly the same thing that Microsoft did with Internet Explorer in the 90s: leverage their control of the platform (in that case, an OS) to exclude competitors for their other products (web browsers).
Despite the EU ruling, Google Shopping is essentially search ads with pictures. And despite being in search results, retail companies have more platforms than ever before to sell through, such as Amazon, Ebay, Instagram/Facebook, and others.
No people didn’t choose to have Microsoft. Microsoft forced OEMs to bundle Windows with all of their computers. Even if the OEM decided not to bundle Windows, they still had to pay a license fee.
No personal computer comes with Chrome installed by default unless the OEM made a deal with Google to bundle it along with other crapware. Users have to explicitly download Chrome.
It’s a lot easier to change your default search engine than change your operating system.
The proof is in Google’s dominance. Google became popular when IE was the default browser on PCs and Safari was the default browser on Macs.
The issue isn't how Google achieved its search engine dominance - it's what it is doing with that dominance. No one denies Google became the search platform of choice because it is genuinely better. That doesn't change the fact that Google is now using that position of near total dominance to stifle competition in other areas, such as e-commerce. That's the (sound) basis for the anti-trust charge.
I’m saying that government intervention through anti trust actions were useless the last two times in the modern era - MS and IBM.
Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google came to prominence by being able to execute. Even MD stayed relevant while the other four were growing through better execution.
Why would anyone think that the government has all of the sudden become competent when it comes to regulating tech when we have forty years that shows just the opposite?
Did you see the dog and pony show when it the government trotted out the 4 tech CEOs? Would you really trust them to be both competent and not corrupt.
