Why not? I already use LLMs to generate summaries of my emails, search emails, and perform a host of email related operations as do many people. No reason OpenAI couldn't release their own email service that tightly integrates their LLM with email directly.
What's interesting about your comment is that back in 2004 people were like "Google releasing an email service? Why on Earth would they do that, that makes no sense!"
- Take the most recent sale prices of all neighboring parcels within a quarter mile
- Take the land-area weighted average price per square foot
- Assess the given property as its land area times that average
Practically, this can be assessed without ever visiting any of the properties, and there are no games for either the assessors or the owners to play to manipulate it.
Each neighbor serves as an example of the potential use (and therefore value) of local parcels. Yes, your hole-in-the-ground gets taxed the same as a skyscraper of the same size. Have you considered building something useful on it?
(Yes, as usual, parks, churches, and other non-economically-extractive community amenities would be exempt from _paying_ the tax, but that doesn't change the assessment)
It’s simple, hard to game, and executable which puts it ahead of many other ideas on the topic.
But: Land above a subway station or in a main business square is worth A LOT more than the same amount of land 1300 feet away. Waterfront land is wildly more valuable than the land just across the street. In districts with front setbacks, corner lots are less valuable per square foot than mid-block lots.
And I’d really hate to own a normal mini-skyscraper 4 blocks away from the skyscrapers overlooking Central Park and have my building’s land be valued as the average of the sum of all the units overlooking the Park.
But your “dumb” idea is smarter than most I think.
This will make lobbying more powerful. If you can’t make money from insider trading, you have one less alternative to accepting bribes. I’d rather require insider trading than ban it.
Science is a tool for finding truth, or at least weighing evidence. It isn’t policy and doesn’t have anything to say about policy.
You can have a policy of waiting for overwhelming proof of harm before banning anything. But there are an awful lot of chemicals added to our food and environment, with precious few studies competently and honestly tracking their effects. I want a much more careful policy - don’t put unknown chemicals in my body without convincing me the benefit.
As described in the article, sharing data between apps is currently impossible. I wish Solid/PODs had taken off, but I get the sense that project spent more time on ontologies and less on making useful things.
How can we draw apps into using a common data backend owned by the user?
Almost all apps I use can export their data into common and open formats. If you make your workflow around common file formats instead of specific apps, then you can easier share data between apps.
LLMs were fantastic for writing a project[0] in a new, niche language[1]. They help write any missing libraries. They help iterate when I get stuck on language aspects. They explain concepts as well as the median SO post, and much better than the posts that don't exist.
Crystal is great! Which LLMs were used in that project? In my short and not very recent experience the LLM frequently mixed up Crystal and Ruby in the code they write.
Cursor with defaults, I guess mostly `cursor-small`.
Typically I write and adjust function names or signatures and let tab-complete draft the code and propagate refactors.
It does mix up Crystal and Ruby, but the compiler catches it.
That matches my experience, so I guess it may be a decent experience for someone new to the language and a bit more frustrating for someone more experienced on it (like me).
You should keep a log of all the failures and then have an LLM form a patch-doc that fixes the Crystal codegen behavior in context. Your failure rate will go way way down.
> If this happens, the designer had a error in his design, and should extend the design to accommodate the facts that escaped him at design time.
Errors in the initial design should be assumed as the default. Wise software engineering should make change easy.
Constraints on natural keys are business logic, not laws of mathematical truth. They are subject to change and often violated in the real world. The database as record-keeping engine should only enforce constraints on artificial keys that maintain its integrity for tracking record identity, history, and references.
Your database may not be primarily a record-keeping engine, and your tradeoffs may be different.
It is useful for humans if a farmer can lock in the price for their crop at planting time, rather than get a nasty surprise when they harvest. In financial terms, this is "selling a futures contract". It's also useful if the farmer sees a low futures price and chooses to plant something better. Likewise every producer and consumer of every crop, metal, hydrocarbon, etc.
Agreed that this author and the industry as a whole go too far in the direction of finance for finance's sake.
