Hackers and hobbiests will persist despite any economics. Much of what they do I don’t see AI replacing, as AI creates based off of what it “knows”, which is mostly things it has previously ingested.

We are not (yet?) at the point where LLM does anything other than put together code snippets it’s seen or derived. If you ask it to find a new attack vector or code dissimilar to something it’s seen before the results are poor.

But the counterpoint every developer needs to keep in mind: AI will only get better. It’s not going to lose any of the current capabilities to generate code, and very likely will continue to expand on what it can accomplish. It’d be naive to assume it can never achieve these new capabilities… The question is just when & how much it costs (in terms of processing and storage).

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child

Usually these costs are including education and childcare. In the US you can easily expect to pay around $1K / Month for full time child care between the ages of 6 months and 5 years (when they’ll start public school). Here’s a recent summary for major cities in Texas reflecting that amount: https://tootris.com/edu/blog/parents/child-care-in-texas-can-cost-up-to-10000/

That’s over $40K just in childcare costs before entering school. Now, many people don’t have to pay this because they have family (or a non-working spouse) who assist; but from a cost perspective it’s fair to include.

Add on to that food, clothing and such… between ages it’s easy to see how some estimates can reach over $200K through age 18.

Your vote is sending a signal to future elections. If Ohio has a 20-point red margin, it’s unlikely to get any attention from blue candidates. If it has a 5% margin, that changes, and suddenly the next campaign considers spending time & money to try and move the needle.

Remember the old Roman adage: “you’re not defeated until you admit defeat”. If you don’t vote: you’ve lost. If you vote, you might still lose that election but there’s a better chance to win in the future.

Both strengthening relations with Russia recently too.

Reference Modi’s recent trip to Moscow: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpd91pe5r9go

A bit of an elaboration on why water towers are used in combination with pumps. Pumps are great for moving a constant amount of water around at whatever rate the pump is designed for (e.g. a small pump will move something like 1 gallon per minute). a big enough pump (or series of smaller pumps) can cause that pumped water to consistently flow at that rate.

The problem is that people don’t use water at a constant rate. In the morning, several residents probably all run the shower at the same time. if too many people open the water tap at the same time, a pump will give each just a fraction of what they expect.

But a water tank high up supplies water by gravity, you could open a large number of water taps, and as long as the pipes from the tank are big enough they’d all have the same pressure as if just one opened.

The water is gradually pumped up to the tank no matter if people are using it or not, then when many people want water, they all get it at expected pressures and the tank start to empty. Eventually people close the taps, the tank will slowly start to fill again from the pump.

This same basic design is also how water towers supply water to many single story buildings, it’s not a unique engineering feat for skyscrapers, but an adjustment to fit somewhere within the building’s footprint.

For those not keeping up: this is the fallout from Erdogan ignoring economics and keeping interest rates low for years; only in the past year or so having conceding to reality and finally letting rates rise. They’ll likely continue suffering fallout from his prior stance on interest rates for the remainder of the decade.

From last summer:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/economy/turkey-hikes-interest-rates/index.html

and

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/14/turkeys-erdogan-agrees-to-monetary-policy-turnaround-under-simsek.html

Same question, but for Big Red soda…

There’s a decent body of research indicating cash transfers actually are as effective as in-kind charity (often found to be even more efficient). With more recently neuance being added hinting at when one or the other is better at achieving long-term benefits. This is the basis behind charities like Give Directly. If you’re interested in some background:

Randomized trial of cash compared to food welfare in Mexico: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.6.2.195

OECD counties comparing cash transfers to expanded childcare and education: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/money-or-kindergarten-distributive-effects-of-cash-versus-in-kind-family-transfers-for-young-children_5k92vxbgpmnt-en#page5

India based comparison, noting the effectiveness and perception of the in-kind charity impacts long term results (e.g. social stigma of receiving food charity): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919214000499

Any assumption that direct cash payments will be misspent as a reason to prefer in-kind welfare isn’t justified IMO. Benefits are fungible. Any money saved on food / childcare / whatever will be respent either efficiently (or not) in similar proportions to the direct money welfare… But administrative costs and externalities with in-kind transfers tend to make them less efficient on average.