Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 22 March 2017 11:16:15PM *  2 points [-]

Planned obsolescence alone doesn't explain the change over time of this phenomenon. It's a static explanation, one which applies equally well to every era, unless something more is said. So the question becomes, Why are manufacturers planning for sooner obsolescence now than they did in the past?

Likewise, "worse materials cost less" is always true. It's a static fact, so it can't explain the observed dynamic phenomenon by itself. Or, at least, you need to add some additional data, like, "materials are available now that are worse than what used to be available". That might explain something. It would be another example of things being globally better in a perverse sense (more options = better).

Comment author: drethelin 22 March 2017 11:40:00PM 1 point [-]

Planned obsolescence is technically difficult: it's relatively easy to design and use a material which lasts indefinitely, but harder to design a machine around materials that last a specified period and then fail. You need to tread the tight-rope between "too shitty to buy" and "too high quality to require frequent replacement."

Comment author: Dustin 20 March 2017 01:51:49PM *  1 point [-]

Consider that the phrase seems like a pretty effective way to out-group other people.

Comment author: drethelin 21 March 2017 04:34:00PM 0 points [-]

Consider that if you focus on a single throwaway generalization from a longer essay that you're the one outgrouping yourself.

Comment author: username2 19 March 2017 02:05:30AM 0 points [-]

Sounds a lot more like rationalization than rationalism.

Comment author: drethelin 19 March 2017 02:52:34AM 0 points [-]

This is why we need downvotes.

Comment author: username2 18 March 2017 09:56:45AM 1 point [-]

That seems entirely unjustified. More people and ore space means more threats and more opportunities. Most child molestation happens from a SINGLE close and trusted family member, acting alone. Yet your same argument could be applied to the single-family household -- with a family living together it is more likely that someone else in the family will notice. But the data doesn't seem to support that.

Comment author: drethelin 18 March 2017 09:49:45PM 1 point [-]

most single family households have a lot fewer than 10-20 people in them.

Comment author: username2 18 March 2017 04:44:04PM *  3 points [-]

As the other anonymous said, this doesn't follow at all. A group living situation creates a larger field of "trusted adults" per child. Unless all the adults are mindful of these risks, a situation arises where any adult may at any time be put in charge of watching any child or children. This is frankly the textbook definition of what not to do.

If the adults are mindful of the risk, then they can be open about it, and ensure that two or more adults are always tasked with watching children, so that the adults can watch each other. And even this may eventually cease to be necessary.

Also, I find that your definition of paranoid must be different from mine if you look at those statistics and think "nothing risky going on here". I have to assume you have no personal experience with this issue. I can't help but feel like people in this thread are conflating a feeling of "I don't want this to be true and I don't want to have to think about it" with "this is obviously overly paranoid".

Comment author: drethelin 18 March 2017 09:44:28PM *  4 points [-]

I think the statistics you quote are exaggerated in order to terrify. When I tried to look up "4% of adults are sexually attracted to children," for example, I found nothing. Similarly, the news is often full of stranger danger fears because terror is what gets attention and therefore revenue and funding. And as others have said, they also include stuff like 18 year olds having sex with 17 year olds, which some people may find unacceptable but I don't.

Comment author: RyanCarey 17 March 2017 11:23:02AM *  1 point [-]

Two thoughts:

1 - Why buy? Can't you rent? Personally, I'd get most of the value by living with friends across two floors of a large house (Event Horizon) or in two nearby houses on a street (The Bailey). A few stable families could buy a big house later per Romeo.

2 - Suppose you actually buy a small dormitory or an old tiny hotel. Call this the hard mode version of the project. Such a building would accommodate at least the 20 you're looking for. But it would require commensurate investment. If I imagine pitching this project, my story for some rationalist investor is that it's a socially responsible investment that will pay itself back with some risk and low ROI but that nonetheless delivers social value by growing the rationalist community. But what projects would be run from such a venue, and what is my case for such? I could imagine mitigating the downside risk by arranging a Free-State-Project--like signup, with some deposits. I could increase the upside by promising to make a chain of such houses. I could buffer the EV by just already being a proven competent impressive startup founder. The hard mode version of the project does seem valuable, but not necessarily that valuable compared to how hard and expensive it is. It would take a serious leader to actually drive it.

Comment author: drethelin 18 March 2017 03:21:44AM 5 points [-]

A huge advantage to buying over renting is you actually get to be in charge of what's done with the space and who lives there, as opposed to a landlord who has different desires. A landlord might want to sell the land to build a zoo, or kick you out so his newly turned 18 son can live there, or simply just not want to divide up the units in your apartment in such a way as facilitates your plans because that'll reduce the building's value.

Comment author: username2 17 March 2017 08:49:43PM 9 points [-]

I feel a little bit morally obligated to point out the following.

The FBI estimates that each child has almost a 25% chance of being molested, that 4% of adults are sexually attracted to children, and that 70% of children were molested by people they knew and trusted. These number seems to at least roughly comport with my personal understanding of the world and my knowledge of the lives of people close to me.

The horrifying ubiquity of sexual predation of children must at least be mentioned under "Obstacles".

The unfortunate reality is that invitations to group living situations select for predators. No, your radar is not tuned to keep them out. No, you cannot sufficiently vet them after a few hours of interaction and observation of their children. If you think I'm being paranoid, I would argue that no, if 25% of children are likely to be molested, you're probably not being paranoid enough.

I would love it if this weren't true, but this is the world we live in.

I'm sure there are measures that can be taken to ameliorate this issue, but just ignoring it is not one of them.

Comment author: drethelin 18 March 2017 03:19:28AM 3 points [-]

This is paranoid, but even if it wasn't: The more people living in one house the LESS likely someone is to get away with molesting someone else unnoticed.

Comment author: RomeoStevens 17 March 2017 05:53:34AM *  12 points [-]

I've looked into housing prices for multi family complexes and they scale sublinearly with number of bedrooms. The biggest obstacle is that people aren't really willing to invest significant fractions of their income in them currently (because you don't want to have to gather 8 investors for an 8 unit, chaos/life happens). Ideally something like 3 people/couples who think they are relatively stable would take on responsibility for an 8 unit with a significant fraction of their income. This is a risk, but one of the top regrets of old people is becoming socially isolated. I think investing a significant fraction of ones income in what will eventually turn partially into semi-passive income (once the mortgage is paid) and partially into their community it is okay to invest a larger than usual fraction of income in. This will still likely take an individual slightly more wealthy than your average techie to eat a larger chunk of the down payment than others and thus own more of the equity in the income stream.

I suspect this is fairly impossible in the bay area which has the lowest conscientiousness people in the US AFAIK.

Edit what I mean by pointing out low conscientiousness is that many people are incredibly short sighted and will defect when short term opportunities look better ie they will not tough out a few years of sub-optimal financial arrangement ie people don't actually grasp the concept of investing in a community. Related to why our kind can't cooperate.

Comment author: drethelin 17 March 2017 06:37:45AM 6 points [-]

All the higher conscientiousness people realize how bad of an idea it is financially to try to live in the bay and move elsewhere

Comment author: drethelin 17 March 2017 06:24:28AM *  1 point [-]

Are there legal barriers to renting property you own only to people in your ingroup? I feel like there must be, especially in California.

Also I second the housing co-op idea, there are a bunch of them here and they seem to work pretty well for the people who live there.

A possibly useful hack for this is kickstarter/tinder type thing, where people can propose buildings, and people announce how much money they would be willing to pay to own what percentage of, a specific place on the market where the next step is only triggered if enough people sign up with a sufficient amount of money that it's worth actually looking into pooling money and purchasing it.

Comment author: James_Miller 17 March 2017 02:35:59AM 2 points [-]

Strange that this kind of thing almost never happens where you get people with similar worldviews deliberately coordinating to live in the same building or neighborhood. It might be easier to start with a rationalist group vacation home.

Comment author: drethelin 17 March 2017 06:10:54AM 4 points [-]

A lot of places actually have laws against more than few unrelated people living in the same house.

View more: Next