- There were 190,939 deaths in 2022, almost 20,000 more than 2021.[0]
- Migrant departures decreased 2% to 219,000 from 223,000 departures a year ago.[1]
So, about 400,000. I guess adding that all up, we have 509,000 net additional persons requiring housing, vs 180,000 additional housing units being produced. So, about 2.8 people per housing unit.
So I guess the next question is, how many people live per housing unit, on average? ABS Knows:
> In 2046 there are projected to be between 2.4 and 2.6 people per household on average[2]
There's still a bit of a discrepancy there, but nowhere near as bad as I thought initially.
I'd guess the only question left is "how many people would prefer to live in a less crowded house, if they were financially able"?
You can make no such assumption I'm afraid. You might expect a native speaker to have perfect English, but you'd be wrong.
There are people with issues like dyslexia and people who don't fit the education system and perform poorly.
I've met non-native speakers who have far better spelling, grammar and an enlarged vocabulary than people who have lived in my English-speaking country for their whole lives.
This won't work correctly because after the first command, part-2 will no longer be an ancestor of part-3. It will try to rebate commits that already exist on the target, leading to unnecessary and difficult merge conflicts.
Why does it have a swivelling head? I would have just mounted a 360 camera there. Then the operator can turn their head in any direction as fast as they want without the latency of waiting for a mechanical head to catch up.
Good point, the sensor count exponentiates and the optics get a lot more complicated if you want a fully integrated system. Nothing on the market I know of but with where we are on the scaling curves now might be the time to try something like it - you could put together a basic proof of concept with a load of commercial sensor elements and wide angle lenses on a sphere. Eventually you can consolidate the central sensors and lenses into concentric hemispheres. You can reduce the data volume by narrowing the camera angles eventually too
Not sure there’s a market but maybe with VR stereo 360 becomes more valuable, who knows. Technologically doable though
That's where you make a hotfix without restarting. When you really understand the structure of knitting, it can be very fulfilling to come up with ways to fix "bugs" like this. Drop down a row or three to redo just that stitch, use twisted stitches to tighten up loose stitches, or even cut the yarn and graft in a patch when you need to add extra material.
But the Slack model is useful in its own way. Within a thread, you will see new posts at the bottom so you don't need to constantly scour all the threads to see new comments to it.
Perhaps CQ2 could do with a toggle to switch between the new views (like https://news.ycombinator.com/newcomments vs looking at HN threads), with some transition to help you keep your place when you toggle between them.
In a way, yes. A lot of money follows these standard formulas for pricing which do not necessarily reflect accurate probabilities of the underlier price movement. After an idiosyncratic price shock (disappointing earnings, geopolitical news etc), people blindly following a trailing 1 month volatility or something will misprice the option as volatility reverts back to the mean. This probably has been arbed away to a large extent by trading algorithms.
The underlying assumption Black-Scholes makes, that stock price movements can be modeled by a log-normal distribution, is known to be false. However not since the 1980s has this lead to the ability to make money of the model itself being imperfect.
The true distribution of the market beliefs in future stock prices can be understood by empirically studying the volatility smile [0]. That is, because investors know Black-Scholes is not a perfect mathematical model of real world stock behavior, every strike price has a different implied volatility. By looking at these different IVs you can get a sense of what the market believes are the true probabilities of "long tail" events.
In theory, the opportunities you have to make money should be cases where you believe the market has mispriced risk. In my amateur experience, I have found that virtually every time you think the market has mispriced some extreme event, when you look at the volatility smile, you realize you are mistaken.
Not really. The equation is just saying "based off these assumptions here is the best price" and you would make money if your assumptions differ from market assumptions in a favorable direction. Arbitrage is the closest to exploiting "bugs" in finance to get risk free returns but in a liquid enough market all these obvious opportunities quickly close (if there's free money on the ground, someone will pick it up, and then there's no more free money ond the ground. Some hedge funds build ultra fast private internet networks just to be able to pick up that free money nanoseconds faster than someone else). It's more that the equation is telling you if you think you have a better estimate for some of these values, what you should be willing to pay.
Would be cool if part of (or the entirety of) your score was the accuracy of your first guess. That's the part that takes skill, after that, it's not so interesting.
