Yeah, but try to sell your rental and see what happens. You can cash out a house and get back a considerable amount. With rent you pay about the same with no options to cash out. If you have low rent with utilities included it can be a good deal here and there vs trying to upkeep a low end house, but those deals are rather far and few between for anything that isn't half falling down junk.

For most home owners the analogy would be not paying mortgage gets you evicted. You can not pay taxes for years usually before they take your house because they will offer payment plans and such vs a landlord just being like YOUR DONE GET OUT!

If robots kill that many jobs it also means everything becomes dirt cheap because labor is almost always the biggest cost of everything. In reality robots will kills some jobs and make some jobs and kill some jobs and make some jobs, there won't be any big all at once style change.

So yeah you might not have a job, but you will have robots that can build houses with almost no labor cost and farmers that can farm food with almost no labor cost.

It's the building the house due to labor and material costs that really has gone up the cost. Most places don't have serious zoning laws because most land by volume is just rural area.

In overbuilt areas you need zoning or people fill fuck each other over constantly and run the area into the ground with poor building choices. We tried it without zoning and we got shitty houses that lowered the value of everyone around them or flooded the area because nobody make them do water management.

Forcing home builders to do water management in higher population density areas or low/marshy areas is just smart. Not letting people build basements in the swamp is just smart.

As far as getting away from some of that you just have to build in less developed areas, you can't just cheat the population density problem and jam more houses together with less rules.

In socialism they still work the workers too hard for too little pay and a select group of people tend to benefit. This is because the system you use for economics does not magically remove human opportunistic behavior. Humans as individual or groups will compete and try to get advantages against each other IN ANY SYSTEM. You can make systems you think deter that behavior, but they will constantly look for the loopholes. Humans adapt their greed to any system you give them and training them away from millions of years of opportunistic evolution creating the brain we have today is not something that can happen fast.

In socialism you have unions that unfairly compete and take advantages from one group. In capitalism you have the same thing, the difference I see is just that capitalism is more self regulating where as socialism has to be micromanaged.

You more or less always need a government, so you always have some public power and then you allow private power to operate in a way that requires less overhead and logistics and matches human behavior well.

At the end of the day it's just a system that works will with human behavior, it's not the system that makes humans greedy. We are all born as rather greedy little liars and we are only taught to work within society we have to curb those natural impulses. Kids pretty much all learn to lie on their own and have to be taught to be honest and to share.

The best you can do with socialism is hope that somehow by leveling the fiscal differences between people you would make them less greedy, but I've seen no sign that actually happens. It seems to me people remain greedy and socialism still has all the corruption and greed of capitalism, just usually at much lower quantities because it's less successful/harder to pull off as your main economic system.

That all being said the only real system we see working is where you balance capitalism and socialism in the form of public vs private power, which at the end of the day is a better way to refer to the socialism vs capitalism debate, though reality does clearly show there are no Capitalism nations or Socialism nations, there are just hybrid nations that use both ideas to varying degrees.

The goal is for person X to make money, that's all. There is no grand conspiracy, it's just lots of assholes trying to make money with any opportunity they see.

Capitalism did not invent greed, greed was a thing before capitalism was even remotely conceived, so you will have these problems in any system with limited resources because that's just how humans are naturally. The sooner you can realize that more sense the world will make to you.

In most places impacts fees are not the big problem and realistically you have to force people to do land management or they will just drain their whole yard into their neighbors yard and claim it's not their problem.

You pay more to build houses in areas that aren't good to build houses, that's fair.

Housing costs are mostly the literally costs of material and labor, there is plenty of room for reduction. House costs are not mostly driven by politics and finance, they are big custom build that takes multiple stages and requires multiple skilled workers on their trade to coordinate their material and labor over several months.. that's the main cost. Even the land is still rather cheap compared to the house in most cases.

How we build houses should be re-invented from the materials to the labor and that's where you would get the most cost savings, by far.

Or living costs will be so low via automation that people don't even bother owning.

Yeah.. but the machine learning is only just getting useful so you're kind of projecting the limitations of a new tech long term as if the tech won't be changing and it probably will change and it probably will be able to go well beyond just combining pre-made content.

That being said all human knowledge is plagiarized from the past, that's the inante foundational kind of process of science and knowledge. We aren't all supposed to figure everything out on our own so much as steal the success of the past as fast as possible and apply it somehow. You're not suppose to re-invent the wheel, you're supposed to copy it and find smart uses for it.

Sometimes 'acquiring knowledge' just means organizing the data so you see the patterns, in fact I'd say the majority of the time. AI is going to be pretty darn good at that and the limits we see now are rather expected vs you should project today's limitations decades into the future as if the tech will be standing still. People do that far too often, they speculate all the negatives and almost gleefully ignore the positives. It skews humans ability to long term project quite a lot.

There might be benefit to having humans write and AI fact check or AI write and humans fact check.. once AI is more than just a toy/sensation at least.

Well .. isn't that the same as TV has been for decades as the dominate media source? I don't think many people signed up for cable to watch TV news they were getting with their antenna for free/with ads. Cable just bundled news with it, so this business model where you either pay for no ads or get free content with ads has been around a long time now.. since radio and TV broadcasting came out. In that case the nature of the broadcasts made subscriptions too hard to pull off because all you needed is a receiver, but still the business model seems to have worked just fine for a long time. It might not produce the most integrity, but subscription only news means the majority of your citizens never sign up and get no news.. which in theory should be bad, but given the state of polarization might oddly work out better.

I don't mind ads, but the kind of ads and the placement matters. They abused their advertising privileges and hurt their own brand reputation in the process. It was a foolish move! Similar regulations and content quality from TV should have made it to internet much faster, but many only half ass invested and their websites reflected the unprofessional and even dangerous state that kind of bad decision making produces. They get what they deserve on that one. Media has to earn it's reputation, not get special treatment.

What in the hell are you even talking about! The little bit of machine learning we have now isn't hugely different than existing mass media tools. Humans don't need custom individual fraud machines, humans trend in behavior well enough that's such a big deal. That's why humans based fraud works so well already!

More information can be inferred about people, through pictures and video, but I don't think that matters much to society as a whole.

They things your blaming AI for are all problem we already deal with, they aren't going to get exponentially worse. I don't think people will care more about their privacy in the future, I think they will just have to are less.

We could all be peering in each other houses recording everything with infrared cameras because most of everything you do somehow winds up in public anyway, it might just be sound or electromagnetic radiation, but if it's leaving your home them it's free to grab and that's how it's always been.

It's just not we can hook computers to microphones and cameras and have them mine that information and form it into likely scenarios like a human behavior radar. It's not going to change all that much, you alreayd have satellites, security cams at business and homes now and smart phones mass proliferated. We are a world of cameras and less privacy and that trend is not slowing down regardless of AI. AI just lets you do more with the data you collected really.

humans can live in 1/3rd gravity long term .. power isn't the problem!

Between rust batteries or similar longer term/cheaper/slower discharge and likely whatever the going EV rapid charge and discharge battery, the energy storage problem should mostly be solved this decade. That means dirt cheap electric is on the horizon, likely so cheap other tech cannot compete with solar/wind.

I'd say medicine and materials sciences because a lot of these are basically like Giant puzzle solving problems where you have to assemble and test a whole bunch of puzzle pieces in the forms of drug candidates and molecular structures and one of the most impressive things we've seen machine learning do so far is speed up those processes.

Machine learning is inherently like a Rubik's cube solver or a puzzle solver so wherever you find fields that people kind of do like repetitive modeling and testing of new materials and where there's a lot of money you'll see machine learning boom the most so that's going to be the medical field and drugs.

We're also going to get much smarter cameras in general and that's going to have a lot of various applications where we can monitor things and have much more precise alerts which will benefit like every field as well as reduce crime...so cameras with machine learning will continue to be a bigger and bigger thing because they're so darn useful in so many different ways.

Fusion reactors will never be cheaper to run than just harvesting fusion via solar panels. Near zero chance of that. Plus most nations don't want something that complex or proprietary where they can't work on it themselves, can't make the parts themselves and could be cut off from the technology entirely by the handful of Nations that control it. Still need special fuel too so you don't get energy independence like with solar. You are buying fusion fuel pellets forever and hopping they stay cheap.

There's just no need to try to compete against solar costs AND energy storage has far more uses than just fusion.

The energy storage costs will go down to 20-40 USD per megawatt hour and that will be that for competing tech.

How will all these developing nations really ever get fusion and how would fusion ever possibly meet the economics of scale of solar or batteries that can be mass produced in factories globally?

Unlimited power isn't about fusion and energy density. You only need so much energy density and only to the point where it's not working against your costs per megawatt. Unlimited power is about keeping costs low and that means mass production and the lowest complexity that can get the job done.

You should rethink your perspective here. The best technology is always the simplest technology that can do the job not the most overpowered and often complex solution.

What happens when they get into the wild and breed like normal rats but live 4 times longer?

Solar Blocking is probably going to be necessary so just get off your high horses and figure out the best way to pull it off. Particulate based blocking is just one option and sulfur is only one option of those options, either way you probably have no choice but to figure out how to block out a fraction of sunlight and we know volcanos can do it rather easily and without huge consequences compared to 3-4C increase by 2100 and mass drought and loss of fresh water supplies.

The fears around solar blocking are unfounded BS compared to the daily destruction of the biosphere, so lets stop pretending known volcanic cooling events are some dire threat to the ozone layer. We know they aren't or humanity would be dead long ago.

Maybe you can pick a better particle, maybe you do space based solar blocking, but you're not going to get out of this with just emissions reduction and pretty much every model that isn't 100% wishful thinking says that.

They've add Co2 removal to some models, but that just doesn't have much impact compared to solar blocking because you can't load EVERYTHING up on just adjust CO2 levels and have anywhere near as much control as lowering CO2 and adjusting energy input into the CO2 insulation layer.

For long term human survivability you have control the climate. You can't just let the natural cycles play out or most/all of humanity has to die off and that's with or without human pollution/industrialization.

The peak of every Interglacial Period is naturally too warm for modern humans and that would naturally be followed by a geologically huge and rapid drop in temps to kick off the Glacial Period. The planet definitely wants to kill us all just like it killed 99% of the life before us. Just reducing and hoping for the best is not a real plan when the stakes are this high.

You need to treat this more like a giant meteor headed toward Earth with the mindset that you may as well try whatever the fuck you possibly can before it hits... not this BS where you preach doomsday for the planet but then solar blocking is too risky.

You can't preach doomsday constantly about global warming AND also hold the position that solar blocking is too risky and reduction and minimalism is the only option. That's more like you just gave up before you even tried.

We are currently in a ice age I believe it's less than about 2.5 million years.

The easiest definition for an ice age is just whenever there's ice at the poles year round.

We are at the warm cycle of an ice age but also in a hundred thousand year warming and cooling cycle which you can look up as the 100,000-year cycle or the interglacial cycle.

More like worse than anything in recorded human history, but also with 2 to 3 times the greenhouse gas levels to spice things up.

You need it to be a crumple zone because head on is deadly and common and you don't need it for much else with an EV so I'd guess it will be storage. Most imagined energy sources, even if not explosive, are best not put in the front crumple zone and the weight of the energy storage is best kept low so designs will favor low batteries under the car UNLESS they go with a battery swapping design, but I still don't think they'd do that from the front vs the back.

Maybe someday cars will not need crumple zones, like airbags on the outside or something, but that's not happening any time soon. They just need to focus on making decent cars cheap enough and safe enough to not get a bad reputation on the products right now. Customers will mostly appreciate the new EVs looking like the cars they are used to.

We aren't going to go to all that trouble to colonize a hostile planet. If that is the only option we may as well just build giant outposts.

I think copying the human brain to a machine is actually a lot more practical than building large spaceships for traveling beyond the solar system.

There is no impossible energy or time problem with copying the human brain to a machine like there is with long distance travel in a large spaceship.

ALL THE TECHNOLOGIES WORK TOGETHER SO YOU CAN DO MORE THAN ONE THING AT A TIME!

Also caps locks doesn't make you right, it makes you look like an angry child!