> Is there a law mandating realtime reporting, or something
Not real time in WA, but all records are public and reported fairly consistently. See https://www.topshelfdata.com for an example of that.
> or are there just limited number of POS providers and they all have realtime API(s)?
This is Headset who is probably the largest retail POS provider (amongst other offerings on the producer/processor side and more) for legal marijuana sales. I'm assuming the data presented here is exclusively from their POS platform. I don't know of any public sources for real time sales data.
> I bet the dashboard doesn't have Johnny from my street corner's transaction...
Yes I'd also bet Johnny doesn't report his sales to a central database/platform.
Why is everyone (ok, fine, mostly economics & tech people) convinced this is such a wildly viable slam dunk of an idea?
Have y'all ever opened up a wall before and seen the electrical, plumbing, etc mechanical bits that make up a home? Any idea of what it'd cost to chop up that office space and feed every individual piece the necessary bits?
It's outrageous that we're even talking about this idea still. It'd require wildddddd tax advantages & federal spends in order to execute on it in any sense of the overarching idea.
But where do you need to live? 237 cities does not mean "very special places".
See (hours fresh article):
> A Thursday report from Zillow indicates that a typical starter home is now worth $1 million or more in 237 cities, up from 84 cities in 2019, underscoring America’s ongoing home affordability crisis
You don't "need" to live anywhere in particular. Many of those 237 cities are part of larger high-cost metro areas.
Move to the Columbus, OH area (or something like that). There are plenty of affordable homes for sale there. Or buy cheap vacant land and build whatever you want. The unemployment rate is low so it's not hard to find a job. Some people are just too picky about location and only want to complain or find excuses instead of doing something to improve their situation.
> Genuine Question, why can't we just charge a federal property tax 3-4x local property taxes for individuals who own >1 property (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important)
I am that person.
I own two duplexes in addition to my primary residence, for a total of four residential rental units – all 2/1s made up of ~750 sq ft each. Those additional properties that I own provide housing to 6 humans who can't purchase, or just prefer not to.
What you're proposing would result in one of two moves from my end:
1. I sell both properties and let someone/some entity (who doesn't work and/or manage the properties themselves, have any relationship with the tenants, will push rents to market prices immediately, etc etc) deal with it.
2. I scrape the lots, stand up single family homes, take my gains and walk inside ~18 months. That puts the 6 humans mentioned above out into a (very tight, <= 1% vacancy rate) rental market that'll bump their monthly rent expense by ~25% minimum and, overall, very likely reduce the headcount of humans housed.
Either way, it's a high level hit to individuals, the market, whatever. It doesn't result in any gains or economic corrections to the RE market.
> (which would likely be distributed back to the locality, specifics not important)
That's already happening in my scenario. I own & operate a General Contractor LLC entity that issues invoices to me, the property owner. The local city, county, and state are paid B&O, sales, etc taxes on those GC LLC invoices out of my personal pocket. Separately, my personal rental income is taxed appropriately at the federal level.
> I think this would just price in the externalities of corporate versus natural person living in a property for a locality.
You know what else can be priced in? Or wildly swing a market into affordability, normality, etc? Letting people build things. My lots are massive, but they consist of sheds and lawns instead of multiplying my units and housing more people.
It's impossible in my local market, and that's why it's carrying the <= 1% residential vacancy rate it has for 15+ years, and why rents are increasing at wild rates that no industry/job market inside 80 miles can support. Economics 101 says supply vs demand etc etc. Easy layups for anyone with half a brain. We don't have to modify anything outside of city/county zoning & the ability to infill everywhere.
Fellow housing provider here. To your point about scraping the lots and building SFHs, I would counter the solution to that is to outlaw zoning for SFHs for tear downs. Raw land, go for it. But if a structure stood on a parcel, you can only increase density when rebuilding and upzone. This also potentially avoids situations like Naperville, Illinois, where you have a housing shortage at the same time obscenely wealthy folks tear down older modest homes to build McMansions to the lot lines.
That would be a bad idea because the problem isnt the need to increase density, that is obvious and wanted by nearly everybody building. The provlem is the zoning often limits lot coverage to one or two units and some percentage less than 50 % coverage. You dont jave to be a dick to the one guy in the hundred building that wants a small single family and lots of land, you need to let the other 99 act in their own self interest and build much higher density with a much jigher unit count.
My suggestion does not prevent a SFH and lots of land entirely, only if an existing structure was torn down to make way for it. You can still buy an existing SFH, or build one on vacant land. You simply can’t replace an existing SFH or multi family with another SFH. Density line only go up.
Yes, that's a good summary of the bad idea. Again, this is a bad idea because it discriminates against one tiny sliver of the resale market (those that want to buy old houses because they like the area the land is in and tear down the house to build a new one). It's not going to work. What you are going to cause is that tiny sliver of people to say "ok, how much do I have to keep to call this a reno and get it through the system?" and then keep that minimum. You are also going to cause an expansion of the government to deal with this new level of regulation, increasing everyone's costs and making us worse off for no discernible benefit because this deals with a part of the new house pipeline that isn't the problem.
The problem is that in most of these place no matter what one does one is still stuck with low lot coverage and low allowable unit numbers (i.e. in my city the overwhelming majority of residential tops out at 45% lot coverage, 15 meter heights, and one unit maximum (a small chunk of the overwhelming majority zoned this way allows 2 units in a restrictive manner as either garden/over garage or basement suite). So instead of wasting resources increasing regulation, the solution is to decrease regulation. rezone all this stupid stuff to allow much higher lot coverage, height and unit count and then approve everything that fits in the zoning in a short period of time rather than dragging it out for months and months through bureaucracy. You get smaller, cheaper government (big win), faster development of the available land (huge win) and you refocus the large contingent of businesses currently focused on buying old single family in places zoned for 2 units, subdividing and building two units onto building much bigger, higher density things like multi unit walkups in the same space raising the unit count from the current max 2 units to 4-10 units on the same piece of land. This will solve most of the problems while giving people the freedom to do what they want (but the incentive to do what is best for society) vs decreasing freedom for no benefit and moderate harm.
To be honest, I don’t really care about the one guy who can afford to buy a run down house in a nice downtown area just to level it and rebuild a $3-5M modern travesty.
Parent here, sorry for taking so long to get back and thanks for such a thorough answer.
I’ll start off by agreeing that supply is the primary issue. If I had to choose between increasing supply and fucking with tax incentives, I choose increasing supply 100/100 times.
However, you’re approaching this solely from the perspective of existing multi home owner.
(The following is directed both at you, but also the other dozen comments making similar points).
The entire point of this change would be to drive prices down. Because carrying this inventory is more expensive. Rent is dictated by what renters are willing to pay, not by your property taxes. What you're willing to pay is driven down by the increased cost of ownership. This leads to more owner occupied lots.
Your third option that you didn’t mention is that you sell the duplexes to one of the renters or someone looking to buy their first home and rent the other half (who now have an advantage over serial investors, and prices are lower) and you can utilize the cash from your sale to invest in other assets that don’t carry as many negative externalities to be invested in as speculative assets (I can’t buy a fucking house!!!!!!!). This is also Economics 101.
But to be clear, 3-4x property tax is too high, it would make more sense in the 20% up to 300% and scales the more you own. Also let’s just build.
The problem is not that rents are too low and sales prices are too high, which might make it appropriate to punish renting a unit and force landlords to sell. The problem is too few of both rental and ownership units.
I see this point oft repeated, usually as a shut-down for the above arguments. But i also see people claiming the complete opposite for their localities (that there are many many extra vacant homes being held than people that need them). It seems like the initial wave of arguments cited tons of statistics but over the months we've just stopped doing that for some reason as everyone's opinions have crystallized.
Stating such a strong assertion should still require at least a link
I think the best person who explains housing trends is Kevin Erdmann. This article provides an overview of his conceptual model for why prices fell nationwide in the Great Recession (people with bad credit were prohibited from getting a mortgage), why both prices and rents have been increasing since the Great Recession (when the Fed reduced prices too low, the construction industry collapsed), and why it is a mistake to attack build-to-rent landlords (they are a major source of new supply today). https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/getting-corp...
There are plenty of ownership units in my state. They are just owned as second homes by people who don't live here. 80k of them sit vacant most of the year. There's only 6k homeless people in the state.
> Easy layups for anyone with half a brain. We don't have to modify anything outside of city/county zoning & the ability to infill everywhere.
Right, that's why we'd both want to allow infill everywhere, and ensure market effects can be realized by simultaneously discouraging property vampires who've got an inflated sense of service to their community—however generous they may think they are—from capturing any/all new homes built with the gains they got from already milking the constrained housing market or being the wealthiest generation; it takes a long time to cool down the ocean.
A set of policies that would enable much more to be built on what were previously lower density lots, that people who were previously priced out have a realistic opportunity to access, and as well constrain the ability for individuals to capitalize on raw surplus ownership. Building more doesn't work if people with modest salaries and families can't even dream of buying or renting the new units, but also things don't get built if there isn't some kind of incentive to do so, and there's a lot of potential for nuance in how policy makers should go about doing that. However it works out though, it shouldn't favor those who show up and threaten to make people homeless as soon as their personal fiefdom seems jeopardized.
On top of those hypothetical policies, protections against displacement of renters seem pretty crucial, in terms of redevelopment of land and letting people move back in, as well as against just arbitrarily selling one's property and tossing your tenants to the wind or leveling their home.
When the real solution is obvious and the proposals are nowhere near it, the game at play isn't to solve the problem:
Remarket collectivist expropriation with some gen-z friendly word salad and backfill details on how this solves ____.
The paradox, to me, is that the set of people pushing for redistribution is almost entirely disjoint from the set of people responsible for creation of the thigns to-be-redistributed. One would think the skill set needed for the latter would make them exceptionally suited for the former, yet here we are.
If we assume that there is no way around this, and the options you suggest are the only options available. Actually, for the sake of argument, let’s further assume that the only option is the worse option. Razing and putting SFH instead.
That still doesn’t mean anything. Nearly any action, private, public, regulatory, or otherwise, will always have impacts that are on their own negative. The real question is how common your scenario is and as a result how do the negatives weigh against the benefits of the action.
Just replace property tax with a land tax and most of your concerns will be handled. Any land upgrade (like buildings) should not affect the tax from owning a property.
Also I think that although rental cost may increase (but it's unlikely as individual rentals will be much more down to earth than those operated by a corporation that's driven only by quarterly earnings), the buying should be much more affordable.
> I somehow expected more density for a custom arrangement like this. One eviscerated mini per sled, ten sleds per rackmount chassis, six chassis per rack: sixty minis in 42-48U.
If Apple isn't willing to manufacture an off-the-shelf offering, what did you expect? That's... pretty dense...
As far as off-the-shelf desktop things turned in-house rack mount sled chassis builds go, 60 Minis in 48U (with _all_ the supporting bits – multiple network switches etc) is pretty damn good?
> I'm willing to believe that there are cooling and airflow advantages to the sleds
Nah the benefits are all management, maintenance, and isolation. Not to mention the sled chassis providing A/B power feed support, IPMI-esque management from the host chassis for each sled, etc etc. The benefits are massive and have nothing to do with cooling/airflow.
> although those two small fans at the back of the sled don't look too exciting.
I can assure you those 40mm fans _scream_.
> The biggest advantage seems to be ~~cable management~~ and the ease of sliding out a single mini at a time.
Bingo. Single sled failure and the ability to swap to a spare/repair the broken one outside of production by pressing your thumb on a trigger and pulling towards you. Huge win vs the off-the-shelf 'rack your factory Mini in this metal cage on rack rails' scenario.
Not to mention you now have the ability to assign jobs/builds intelligently at a sled/host chassis level. Isolation & proper distribution of jobs at that granularity (and cabinet, power phase feed consumption, A/B feeds, cabinet row(s), etc) is very valuable. This shit is really, really dope.
I’ve had great luck with NOS 18v batteries from eBay. Had to pick up a pair for an 18v trim nailer that doesn’t support their 20v adapter. My neighbor did the same for his 18v collection. All going strong.
A lot of people say that about a lot of art. 'Terrible ideas' can be very, very dope though. IMO mapping their primary domain to a fuckin' Google Sheet is banger hah.
> Artist websites (IMO) have an actual purpose, keeping your audience updated with tour dates for one.
Those are there, though? Also Google returns the 29 tour tracking/ticketing platforms in their trailing results behind the primary domain. I think the fans will be ok...
> Agents and venues looking for promo pictures.
> Festival planners looking to get a sense of your style etc.
Bruh it's Portugal. The Man. There is one agent (theirs) and venues/festival "planners" (???) aren't "looking" for promo photos – they're delivered by their agent and/or management with restrictions, guidelines, and approval for promotional use only. They can't just pull random media off the internet for promo.
Nobody is trying to determine their "style". That's been clearly defined for a minute (decade+) now. If anything these people are selling PTM, not the other way around.
> My bet would be that they started tracking tour dates on a Google Sheet and decided to share it to a tour manager and here we are...
I can guarantee you that's incorrect. You don't think they plot & plan & intelligently deploy their entire, well... everything? For months on months before we see it? Nobody fumbled about, tweaked the layout & styling, and toggled the Share function on the Google Sheet organically haha.
> Ticketmaster has a number of competitors (StubHub, Eventbrite, AXS, Seatgeek).
Those are reseller platforms (StubHub, Seatgeek) and independent entities (Eventbrite & AXS) that aren't associated with the venues/rooms they're playing in.
So your examples either:
1) Resell tickets from Ticketmaster + the list you mentioned + all other providers, or
2) They don't have the ability to flex on people because they don't own & operate the rooms across the entire planet, and in turn can't hit them with exclusivity clauses in their contracts the second they step foot into one of XXXXX rooms they'd like to play.
> Nevertheless, artists do seem to always gravitate to companies like Ticketmaster, even when neither they nor their venue have any affiliation.
Are you sure those non-affiliated venues don't have 10+ year exclusive ticketing contract that came with a fat lump sum when the ink dried in order to modernize & sustain their business?
I'd also question which rooms are slanging TM tickets without being owned by the overarching entity? I don't think I've ever seen that and I'd appreciate you presenting some examples of this.
> What we should ask is what problems a naive artist would face selling their tickets like any other commodity:
So anyone outside the TM system is naive? Wow... 0k... proceed...
> - They overprice it: No one shows up, people are angry at the artist, the artist is in debt to the venue for overbooking.
Please explain to me how the artist is in debt to the venue? There isn't a promoter in between the two? The artist is signing loan agreements and going into debt to the venue? Tell me you have zero clue what you're talking about without telling me you don't know a single thing about this industry...
> - They underprice it: The tickets are hoovered up by scalpers who capture most of the ticket's true value, fans are disappointed they can't attend because finding a ticket is much harder.
Again, no idea what you're talking about.
1) TM is GASSED UP when scalpers hoover up. They have multiple reselling platforms for exactly this scenario, including one that's TM branded. They _love_ this.
2) In reality, the promoter/venue is totally fine with this. They build offers against the proposed ticket price & sellable capacity, and a sell out is a sell out. Sure, hindsight is 20/20 and they'll reference historicals and adjust accordingly when the agent hits them up for the next play, but nobody is mad at a sell out.
> and package the event wholesale for the venue and artist. Both parties are can be guaranteed of some portion of the event before tickets even go on sale and the risk for them both is diminished.
They own & operate the venues. The artists are paid cash up front to sign the exclusive tour contract. They're not working for _anyone_ other than Ticketmaster... you're tripping my guy...
> Obviously I'm not trying to say Ticketmaster is all sunshine and lollipops
Ayyyyy no worries anyone with any exposure to this industry and half of a brain has already determined you have no idea what you're talking about, you're wrong & confused & way out of pocket, and we already know TM isn't sunshine & lollipops... back into your text editor you go (please)...
Erm except AEG promoted that whole tour (and the too few beyond it – RIP Prince) and is a replica of, and/or, the only direct competitor of Live Nation.
That's a weird example to pick out, as if Prince was 'fighting the system', and yet I'm sure you know he exclusively signed & got paid up-front from the 2nd positioned monopoly in the game.
Cool story that you got to sit side stage and wrote code behind his fan club ticketing (which I'm sure you and AMEX shared for <= 7% total tickets sold, and AEG _definitely_ didn't finance as part of the exclusivity deal on the whole run) but come on... I know you know all you've done is present an alternative story that's supposed to garner upvotes but anyone who knows, knows you were the next one in line to fuck this entire industry and rake it off top.
It’s weird to complain about supporting AEG claiming they’re somehow the 2nd “monopoly” after LiveNation. You can only have one “monopoly” in a given industry, otherwise they’re both just close competitors.
Having a close second competitor is still a step in the right direction, even if you disagree with their business practices.
Who cares? This person is telling a story about their lack of access to cool new tech, and what projects like this one have provided them.
Split hairs all you want but giving less privileged people access to funsies that eventually turn to deeper technical interest and (I assume) a higher earning career is the overarching message and I’m all the way about that. The weird dissection of an uplifting & cool comment like OPs is classic HN & definitely unnecessary.
Edit: And their reply resonates with me. Not fronting like I couldn’t have those things, but I dug deep into retro gaming (via emulation) in my early teens and my career can be traced back to that original interest & deep diving.
I just fail to see how a court decision in the US would have any effect on another country. It's not like OP's situation and access to emulators would have been any different if the decision went Sony's way.
> It's not like OP's situation and access to emulators would have been any different if the decision went Sony's way.
I would respectfully disagree - although it's hard to speculate on alternative histories.
The United States has an outsized impact on the software industry - even for the largest economy in the world (American big-tech dominates the largest companies by market cap).
Preventing or impeding the development of emulation software in the US would definitely impact the rest of the world, simply because fewer people and companies can legally contribute to open-source Emulation software.
People and companies in the US have contributed a whole lot of hours to emulator development, such that it's plausible emulation would not be nearly as good as it is if such development were illegal in the US. Moreover, less effort may have been put into emulator development or emulation-based-product development by foreign companies, if they were legally unable to sell their products in the US, which is a large and rich market. Further, US copyright policy has a tendency to influence international copyright regimes, over the longer term.
The actual mechanism seems pretty straightforward (the US is a big open country, if things can happen here somebody will do it and it’ll spread across the world without many speedbumps).
Their phrasing was a bit awkward though, when they say “Luckily emulation has always been legal…” one would assume they are talking about the jurisdiction they live in, by default at least.
so straightforward that it makes you realize how comically bad some people here in the comment section are at understanding even broad strokes kinda implications about their and others actions.
Well - it depends on the topic really. And, not the fact a law exists in the US. A judgement in the US has no bearing on law in other countries, except where it is used to then set a presidency as others had said.
US law is actually different enough from some other countries that what is legal in the US is outright illegal, and vice versa. If you want some low hanging fruit - anything to do with guns, gender identity, abortion, liable/slander and "free" speech - many countries disagree and actively oppose the US stand point, on both sides of the US position. Another good example is anything granted in the US constitution is not a "God given right" outside of the US (which probably intersects with guns and free speech, maybe other things). US passing a law is not going to change that.
DMCA does not affect other countries - we have our own laws - some of which were put in place in line with the ideas that caused the DMCA, but some of which predate it. Also - "fair use" is a wholly US concept, and might not apply, depending on where you are located.
Not real time in WA, but all records are public and reported fairly consistently. See https://www.topshelfdata.com for an example of that.
> or are there just limited number of POS providers and they all have realtime API(s)?
This is Headset who is probably the largest retail POS provider (amongst other offerings on the producer/processor side and more) for legal marijuana sales. I'm assuming the data presented here is exclusively from their POS platform. I don't know of any public sources for real time sales data.
> I bet the dashboard doesn't have Johnny from my street corner's transaction...
Yes I'd also bet Johnny doesn't report his sales to a central database/platform.