No, it really is not that easy. Check out China, and read up on the Spanish housing crisis. "Just build more" works only sometimes, as demonstrated in those counter-examples. Housing is massive societal and sociological problem with no simple fix. Furthermore, in many circles, another proposal is to cut red tape. You know, housing in the US already is among the least affordable and lowest quality in the developed world. But some people really insist that going back to asbestos and lead pipes would make housing cheaper.
And don't get me wrong, asbestos and lead are wonderful construction materials. Cheap, durable, and high quality. It's just a shame it causes all sorts of health complications when we use them, right? I mean, it would definitely make housing cheaper, but also cause all kinds of health problems.
Your reply conflates “build more” with “build anything, anywhere, with no standards”, which is not what they wrote. China and Spain are not rebuttals to the basic supply point because both involved distorted credit, speculation, and overbuilding in the wrong places or segments, not healthy increases in broadly useful housing supply. The question is not whether supply is the only variable, but whether more homes, in places people actually want to live, puts downward pressure on prices and rents, and it does. That is just basic scarcity: when demand rises faster than housing stock, prices go up.
Keeping crime low matters too, because people pay a premium for safety, and high-crime areas often face weaker investment and worse long-term housing outcomes. And “cutting red tape” does not mean legalising asbestos or lead pipes, which is a straw man. It means reducing delays, exclusionary zoning, parking mandates, and other rules that limit safe housing production and raise costs for no good reason. Housing is absolutely a complex social problem, but complexity does not erase the role of supply. More safe housing plus safer neighbourhoods will not solve everything, but it is still one of the clearest ways to reduce pressure on rents and prices.
I think it's a gimmick that Samsung will cut out in future models for cost savings reasons. Like Samsung ditched the edge displays, or the Bluetooth in their S-Pen, or like Apple ditched 3D touch.
State of the art literally just means that it is the latest and most capable, compared with peers.
As such, China launched DeepSeek R1, and they kind of broke the web, because it was pretty good compared with OpenAI, but also fully self-hostable. The self-hostable OpenAI and Meta models just aren't very good, Grok has nothing self-hostable, and I think Gemini only has a small model released.
Meanwhile China has the best self-hostable models, up there with Mistral.
So yes, Chinese AI is SOTA. Maybe not better than the American cloud-based models, but definitely SOTA for self-hostable ones.
Also I think you are wrong about "actual practice". Chinese AIs work great. They are not perfect, but OpenAI Codex also messes up a lot.
I do not consider removing redundant sensors like lidar or infrared from the comprehensive Tesla sensor network and pretending that cameras can do FSD perfectly a good example of engineerring.
And don't get me wrong, asbestos and lead are wonderful construction materials. Cheap, durable, and high quality. It's just a shame it causes all sorts of health complications when we use them, right? I mean, it would definitely make housing cheaper, but also cause all kinds of health problems.
reply