Congratulations, you've just provided the training data such that the next generation of models trained using their copy of the public blogosphere as of this date will now talk all day about their soul overview and quote what you have had Claude generate.
There's a canary string at the end of the post to prevent that.
Of course, it might to happen anyway. DeepSeek models frequently think they are every other model if prompted. Claude Sonnet/Opus 4.5, when they do web searches, also tend to think they wrote the web search text when they quote it IME.
In 2009 the same chart shows that the median age was 39.
In the early 80s it was early 30s.
Look at congress, we live in a boomer gerontocracy. Not every boomer is wealthy and powerful, but the majority of people who are wealthy and powerful are either descendants of elites/wealthy, boomers, or a very small fraction of younger tech/finance/business owners.
The good news is - assuming there's not a big change in immigration rates - if you can rent cheaply enough for 10-20 years the boomers will start dying in sufficient numbers that if there is somehow no reversion on home prices in the mean time there should be insufficient buyers at that point and prices will eventually fall.
>"if you can rent cheaply enough for 10-20 years the boomers will start dying in sufficient numbers that if there is somehow no reversion on home prices in the mean time there should be insufficient buyers at that point and prices will eventually fall"
But that "10-20 years" is your life, and there's no getting it back. Millennials (the largest generation in US history) have entered into our prime family starting age, and the fact that most are priced out of the housing market right now and stuck renting apartments is a complete tragedy. At a 90th percentile income, I can just barely be able to afford a home and provide for a family of 3-4 like our parents and grandparents did on a highschool education with no higher skills.
I doubt your parents instantly bought a house as unskilled workers at age 18. Maybe in a very few ultra cheap housing markets that would have been possible.
For example in 1980 in SF the median home was $130k and the median household income was $16k. Today it’s $1240k and $141k. So yes it’s less affordable but it’s hardly a massive difference as you imply.
I have figured out my father working an unskilled factory job in 1970 made about $40k adjusted for inflation in order to buy a $40k starter home in early 20s.
Union job with a pension that he is still collecting right now after retiring at 55.
No college. Not even sure he has ever read a book in his life. I would say all you had to do was not be an alcoholic and you would be fine but even that is not true. Even the boomer alcoholic fuck ups I know did pretty well and retired early.
This might be a bit of talking past one another. The rent vs buy argument should be comparing similar housing, but your comment bakes in the assumption that renting=apartment. That may be true for your area, just wanted to point out the dissonance.
> most are priced out of the housing market right now and stuck renting apartments is a complete tragedy
It absolutely is, but as one of those myself, I just refuse to even attempt to pay their prices and will make the best of life while renting and doing other things, not having kids, not owning property unless the ratio changes dramatically. Owning at most a tiny condo for half a million where I live, or moving to the boonies to own marginally more for less is simply not appealing to me, it doesn't unlock anything but a vague sense of security and a shit ton of liability. I hope more people choose the same until the working age tranch of purchasing power isn't as available as they'd like and prices have to drop. It's a major issue, but maybe I should be thankful I never adopted the boomer/genx dreams of owning a place and having a family or whatever. It's something I'm morbidly watching from the sidelines for now (in my early-mid thirties), but there are no circumstances except a miracle side hustle that could create the circumstances for me to actually pursue a mortgage on a place in my city.
>"I hope more people choose the same until the working age tranch of purchasing power isn't as available as they'd like and prices have to drop."
You just have to remember and keep in mind that the game is rigged. Housing is far from being a completely free market in this country. The structural political forces entrenched in maintaining home prices is second to none, from the top federal level all the way down to city councils, in a completely bipartisan way. The crisis of '08 was a generational event that we're not likely to see again in our lifetimes. Flattening and dips for sure, but a crash will not be allowed to happen; they'll just print enough to fix it, and leave the burden of inflation to anyone not owning assets.
Agreed on every point, except I'm actually in Canada, so it's partly because housing didn't crash here that we're arguably even more turbofucked, afaik anyway. Although our current administration would like every working age person to believe that it's solely because of your president that we're screwed economically, the writing has been on the wall for a while; too much of our GDP is made up of residential real estate sales and the rental income generated by the scarcity of them and going into the pockets of people who borrowed endlessly against them.
Well, if we want to be technical about it, the 2008 crash did happen because some structural forces (banks) were perfectly happy to originate highly risky mortgages in exchange for higher face value rates.
Which had the side effect of allowing a lot of people who couldn't otherwise afford homes to purchase them by allowing them access to more leverage than they likely should have had.
If they print enough money your other assets will go up (maybe enough to buy a house that has stayed flat in nominal terms)
This is basically the situation with housing in Canada actually, it's been down/flat in nominal terms since 2021 but if you owned US stocks during that time while waiting to buy then Canadian real estate is now much more affordable to you.
This is all home buyers not first time home buyers. So it’s not clear what we can conclude. It could be that more retirees are buying a house to retire to rather than renting.
I imagine age of first time home buyers has also gone up but there’s no way it’s that high.
I'm sure Ol' John is no player when we compare how much investment funds have being pushing to buy homes. Around here, you can't even bid for a small apartment. They get sold to the folks before they start. Paying flat taxes on hundreds of properties doesnt make sense. They don't contribute to generate more jobs. They just replace the buyer and charge extra money that could have be reverted to other expenses that would create a healthier economy by diversity.
I wonder if the distribution of ages for home buyers is not a normal distribution and maybe the median and standard deviations might tell us something more here. Regardless it's concerning that the average and likely median age has shot up that much.
Well, since 1980, the median age in the population has also increased by about a decade, which is a significant (but not a majority) contributor to this.
>if you can rent cheaply enough for 10-20 years the boomers will start dying in sufficient numbers that if there is somehow no reversion on home prices in the mean time there should be insufficient buyers at that point and prices will eventually fall.
You may be missing something - there's so much money flowing upwards in society that the rich/ultra-rich will simply be able to buy ALL of that real estate as it becomes available. If not ALL, then everything that's desirable.
Yeah it’s not even covering all of LA despite the claim of “being in LA”. Just a mostly flat portion. It doesn’t go into the valley. It doesn’t really go into south LA. It doesn’t go east of the 5. It still doesn’t go to LAX either.
Building out depot and charging infrastructure and working with city officials are both slow processes, so I imagine you'll see them prioritize spreading out to a lot of cities first, in the most profitable areas (downtown), then expand the service area in each of them over time as they get more cars.
Yes, it's an early stage technology and the logistics of scaling is non-trivial. Yet, if you look at the numbers, they've been scaling surprisingly fast, at a sustained rate of 5x per year for 5 years in weekly paid rides.
People who live in snowy/icy areas will simply never have autonomous driving. Does that settle it? Or do we have to keep pointing out obvious limitations to cutting edge technology?
The American phenomenon of labeling the natural consequence of economic stress + overwork + being disconnected from healthy relationships and nature as "anxiety" and treating the symptom with brain scrambler pills while doing nothing about the cause.
This is why I get angry at my doctor whenever they say "Reduce your stress." I'm like "Dude, I can't just quit my job like that." Meanwhile everyone else is telling me to paper over the cracks in the wall with meditation, exercise, and good eating. Turns out that doesn't do much when you are working 60-80 hours a week. Meanwhile, it's getting harder and harder to support your family.
I first started hearing about it 20 years ago, and was able to confirm it for myself earlier this year. In order to truly de-stress, to let go, you need 3 weeks away. Doesn't have to be a 3 week vacation, just 3 weeks of not thinking about work.
If you can do it, I highly recommend it if for no other reason to clearly see just how much stress your work is adding to your life, even if everything seems "fine".
I say that fully acknowledging that very, very few people will get that opportunity, "unlimited" PTO or otherwise.
Assuming you are working in IT, there are plenty zero stress working opportunities available. However, they are not being paid that well.
There I’m going with it - there is a choice available, more money vs less stress.
I literally on the job market right now and got few offers from banks. But perhaps it's region-specific and outside of Bay Area the situation is drastically different, idk.
...Which actually works out to trading one kind of stress for another. It's a false choice.
This is a systemic problem, and we cannot fix it with individualized solutions. For the vast majority of people, the only way to actually get ahead is to fix the system.
Tax the rich. Shatter the current massive income and wealth inequalities. Institute proper social safety nets. Provide for everyone, not just those deemed "deserving."
Is it possible that a random person who discovered your repo from Google search would make the same mistake the LLM did and assume it works and not realize it was an unfinished experiment?
Yes, and so the value of the persons opinions on the repo is low. Far lower than real documentation written by someone who knows more, that would not have made that mistake.
The value proposition here is that these llm docs would be useful, however in this case they were not.
>Far lower than real documentation written by someone who knows more, that would not have made that mistake.
But his own documentation did said that there was a VSCode extension, with installation instructions, a README, changelog, etc. From what he said, it doesn't even compile or remotely work. It would be extremely aggravating to attempt to build the project with the maintainer's own documentation, spend an hour trying to figure out what's wrong, and then contact the maintainer for him to say, "oh yeah, that documentation not correct, that doesn't even compile even though I said it did 2 months ago lol." It is extremely ironic that he is so gungho about DeepWiki getting this wrong.
Yes, this is my point. It seems like the creator was a little bit lazy to create such a full fledged readme.md with so much polish but -entirely neglect to mention the whole thing is broken and unfinished-.
That seems about as annoying as a random wiki mis-explaining your system.
That being said, I am still biased towards empathizing with the library author since contributing to open source should be seen as being a great service already in and of itself, and I'd default to avoiding casting blame at an author for not doing things "perfectly" or whatever when they are already doing volunteer work/sharing code they could just keep private.
The WIP code was committed with the expectation that very few people would see it because it was not linked anywhere in the main readme. It's a calculated risk, so that the code wouldn't get out of date with main. The risk changed when their LLM (wrongly) decided to elevate it to users before it was ready.
It's clear DeepWiki is just a sales funnel for Devin, so all of this is being done in bad faith anyway. I don't expect them to care much.
>That being said, I am still biased towards empathizing with the library author since contributing to open source should be seen as being a great service already in and of itself, and I'd default to avoiding casting blame at an author for not doing things "perfectly" or whatever when they are already doing volunteer work/sharing code they could just keep private
This is true, and the only reason for this was more so his dismissive view of DeepWiki than a criticism of the project itself or of the author as a programmer. LLMs hallucinate all the time, but there is usually a method to the way they do so. Particularly, for it to just say a repo had a VSCode extension portion with nothing pointing to it would not be typical at all for an LLM like DeepWiki.
You can just use the wipe memory feature or if you don't trust that, then start a new account (new login creds), if you don't trust that then get a new device, cell provider/wifi, credit card, I.P, login creds etc.
They are multiple companies in-one. One that is pushing for AGI, model development, one that is trying to build consumer apps and "win" AI applications/platform moat.
reply