I think you are confusing Erdogan with Imamoglu. Imamoglu has photographs, classmates, there is no doubt that he attended college. His diploma was anulled because he transferred initially from a different college. He spent 4 years at the Istanbul uni, attended classes, passed the exams, there is no doubt in that.
On the other hand, Erdogan does not have a single photograph during his university years, no classmates to back his story. He started a two year degree, but there is no evidence he attended a four year program.
A public notary issued a same as original certification on a disputed document. The original diploma of erdogan cannot be found. Looking at the date of the diploma, the university faculty didn't even exist yet.
I am not confusing anyone with anyone, just discussing the linked Wikipedia article. A few quotes:
>Aydın Ayaydın, a Member of Parliament from the opposition party CHP said that Erdoğan participated in the four-year degree education of Aksaray Academy of Economic and Commercial Sciences, as Ayaydın himself was a teacher of Erdoğan. Expressing that he remembers Erdoğan and his classmates very well, Ayaydın said "one of his classmates is Mehmet Emin Arat, who currently is a professor at Marmara University
>Mehmet Emin Arat himself called the claims on Erdoğan not having a degree "unfair" and "baseless", stating that "the claims do not have any legal, official or historical basis".[14]
>Israeli Journalist Rafael Sadi, who was another classmate of Erdoğan,[15] said that he was irritated by "people that are telling baseless lies just to slander the man for the sake of opposition" and shared the names of professors that he and Erdoğan followed courses from.
Of course they can all be bribed and/or lying, but the Wikipedia article as written supports the version that his diploma is legitimate. Or at least that's my reading.
I've run it against my nightscout data a few times to get insights to my profile. So yes, you should install it somewhere and run a CGM app such as xdrip which can transfer your libre2 data to your nightscout database.
So yes, if you are interested on autotune, a nightscout is required for now.
Have you tried Claude.ai. In my experience on computer science topics, the LLMs are very good. Because they have been trained on a vast amount of information online. I just had a nice conversation about mutexes and semaphores with claude and was able to finally grasp what they were.
I do not know if this is the case for example for mathematics or sciences.
No, this is not accurate in my trials. I use Claude.ai daily. If you ask questions on niche topics or dive down too deep, it says that resources on the topic are limited and you should consult a book.
This was a very cool read. Programmers were programmers even back in the day of Mark I.
It is cool to see that they dabbled in natural language processing back then. This is years before Eliza and they were working on generating English prose based on English grammar. Very impressive!
The music generation program they wrote is equally impressive. The recording that was playing shows that they were adept enough to time events in the computer so good that they could playback songs. This was back in the early 1950s.
The solution is actually simpler, set a property tax that would hurt if the buildings became vacant. For example if you pay 1% of the buildings value as property tax each year, it would make enough incentive to rent it out or sell if you don't need it. The proceeds can be used for building public housing projects or helping the homeless. Property tax was invented for this very reason.
Something like this yes. But the devil will be in the details.
"pay 1% of the buildings value as property tax each year"
A old rotten building might be worth just 10000€. And 100 € a year ain't that much. One would have to tax the property - and who will set up the rates in a fair way in a process that is not vulnerable to corruption?
And old rotten building sitting anywhere in a city is worth way more than 10.000€. Even if the building is not in good shape, the land is still valuable.
Right, and then the 80yo people living in a centenary house in a gentrified neighborhood suddenly get a 10x tax increase because the next door building got sold to be remodeled as a luxury condo, and drove property values through the roof.
That's good, because if they can't pay, their house is up for remodelling too. /sarcasm
I'm open to being wrong but I believe the data shows, old people in the UK are living in houses that are too large and receiving pensions that rise with inflation whilst "young people" are paying huge rents, can't afford to buy and are stuck with huge student debt. Why shouldn't the old couple move to let 10x apartments be built? Or does the data show differently?
"Why shouldn't the old couple move to let 10x apartments be built?"
Imagine you worked all your life and now you just want to enjoy your peace in your home for your last years. You really would not want to move and I am very against driving old people out of their homes, even though I am one of those young people with a small apartment also seeing empty and unused space everywhere.
If the property tax goes up by 10x, then that 80 year old couple has seen a 10x return on their real estate investment. They can easily take out a reverse mortgage to pay the property tax for the rest of their lives.
"They can easily take out a reverse mortgage to pay the property tax for the rest of their lives."
Not everyone can do that easily. I would not know how that works and where are the downsides. I can learn it, sure, but for an 80 year old this would be real stress, having to figure unknown contracts out - and not getting cheated. Old people are a prime target for frauds for a reason.
The reality is that the same thing, in effect, happens if you stop paying property taxes. The tax builds up and then when the house is sold after passing the government collects the tax before the descendants receive the sale proceeds.
This is why complaining about rising property taxes is almost never about the elderly people who actually live in the house. It's about their children that want to inherit the house without paying off their parents' property taxes.
Not really. By definition if your property value rises by 10x you have enough money to pay the property taxes by leveraging your home. Sure, it means you'll have to sell when you die and won't be able to pass on the house to your heirs. But the meme, "elderly homeowner becomes homeless because his home became super value" is just a fiction. It's not that the homeowner can't pay the property taxes - he's got plenty of value in his home. It's really the children that want to inherit a valuable home but don't want to cover the tax back payment.
Yes, we are discussing a hypothetical, from a few parents up: "set a property tax that would hurt if the buildings became vacant"
The definition of vacant is something that would have to be figured out, but it's not impossible. For example, you could do a generous 6-12 months of the year occupation without taxation, and then a sliding scale from there. (So you pay 0% of the new tax at 12 months yearly occupation, 0% at 6 months, 50% at 3 months, and 100% at 0 months.)
It seems to me that we could start with a conservative approach and adjust from there. For example, define a property as vacant if it isn't occupied for 1 continuous month or a total of three months out of the year.
That is the very problem we are facing in Turkey :). The municipality determines the value of housing in a neighborhood each year. That is taken as a basis for property taxes and transaction taxes. The municipality assessed value is somewhere near 1/20th of the value of an average flat. So, almost no tax gets collected :(.
Having a building vacant is already incredibly expensive; costs and interest add up and the building can get severely damaged (a building has to be heated in winter, ventilated properly and issues like broken pipes have to be found quickly by tenants etc.). Common reasons for vacancies are probate disputes, owners that are house rich but cash poor and can't handle maintenance, issues with building code and permits and similar. Apart from some truly dysfunct situations a scheme that involves vacancy doesn't make much sense. Why not take even a modest rent for a bit?
In general, everything you could propose that puts pressure on landlords leads to transfer of ownership from your (maybe friendly) landlord with 2-3 units, to larger, more professional companies who can handle the paperwork and regulations, with a tendency to tear down and rebuild something that is more expensive to rent or buy.
In countries with high inflation purchasing real-estate and keeping it vacant is an inflation hedge. Plus, you also benefit from low interest rates and get free money if your government allows it.
I live in Turkey. We had 80% p.a. inflation, where the government decided to lower the interest rates even further. Our president said Interest rates are the cause of inflation and if we lowered interest rates inflation would go down. State banks gave out house loans with 12% p.a. interest where the inflation rate was above 80% p.a.
A lot of Turkish people got their free money from the bank and invested in real estate. In Turkey, everyone evades tax and property taxes are not really collected. This in turn fueled inflation even more, sky-rocketed inequality and caused the worst housing crisis.
That is why I am convinced that property taxes are a must.
I live somewhere with ~3% property taxes on properties, including the one you reside in. Not so long ago mortgages were cheaper than that, and mortgages at least end someday. At the same time, short term rentals like airbnb are illegal. Combined, this leads to most landlords either being companies large enough to keep extremely high occupancy rates, or families that flout the law to rent a second property owned due to marriage or inheritance and become vulnerable the whims of neighbors.
I think allowing short term rentals, and giving owners strong eviction rights for damage, illegal activity or non-payment (which we have) need to be paired with property taxes to prevent all landlords becoming large inhuman entities.
It should also be noted that if you tax everything at the value it could make, you distort the usage of valuable locations to exclude housing.
Its probsbly hard to reliably enforce it since hard to figure out if bulding is occupied or not. You can have someone registered at the residency but still not live there.
You could maybe try to figure out based on water usage but then someone could just leave water tap slightly leaking since water cost is not that expensive
Probsbly squatters are those cheap solution that can enforce it in the most efficient way
You don't need to know if people live there, just raise tax enough so that the owner feels like renting or selling the building is better than paying the taxes out of pocket.
This also forcess poorer people (including retired people) to sell off the house they are actually living in. This is especially true if the tax is based on the current estimated value which may be much higher than what the house was bought for.
There are ways around this. For example set a property tax from second home on. Do not tax the primary residence. Or set income brackets. If poorer people live in their own homes they don't pay property tax.
But tax authorities are also quite often wrong about regulations and laws. That is why objection procedures exist. Legal system is built on such fail-safes. Even judges err on laws some times.
If you call the government tax hotline and ask a question not written under the prepared questions list, what would you expect would happen? The call center service personell is certainly not expert on tax laws. You would treat it suspiciously.
If LLMs can beat humans on the error rate, they would be of a great service.
LLMs are not fail-proof machines, they are intelligent models that can make mistakes just like us. One difference is that they do not get tired, they do not have an ego, they happily provide reasonings for all their work so that it can be checked by another intelligence (be it human or LLM).
Have we tried to establish a counsel of several LLMs to check answers for accuracy? That is what we do as humans in important decisions. I am confident that different models can spot hallucinations in one another.
Just to be really clear since I had to call the IRS tax hotline the other day... they are real experts over there.
And generally, people will tell me, "I'm not sure" or "I don't know". They won't just start wildly making things up but stating them in a way that sounds plausible.
“What is your error rate?”
This is the question where this sub genre of LLM ideas goes to die and be reborn as a “Co-pilot” solution.
1) Yes. MANY of these implementations are better than humans. Heck, they can be better at soft skills than humans.
2) How do you detect errors? What do you do when you give a user terrible information (Convincingly)
2.2) What do you do now, with your error rate, when your rate of creating errors has gone up since you no longer have to wait for a human to be free to handle a call?
You want the error rate, because you want to eventually figure out how much you have to spend on clean up.
But LLMs always advertise themselves as a "co-pilot" solution anyway. Everywhere you use LLMs they put a disclaimer that LLMs are prone to errors and you need to check the responses if you are using it foe something serious.
I agree that it would be better if the LLMs showed you stats on utilization and tokens and also an estimated error rate based on these.
I don't think LLMs are going to replace anyone. We will get much more productive though.
Just like the invention of computers reduced the need for human computers who calculated numbers by hand or mechanical calculators or automatic switching lines reduced the need for telephone operators or computers&printers reduced the need for copywriting secretaries, our professions will progress.
We will be able to do more with less cost, so we will produce more.
Hey, please note that this isn't directed you as an individual. This is whats going on in corporate land.
Your argument is essentially that the market will adapt, and to this I have made no comment, or concerned myself to feel joy or fear. I am unsure what this point is addressing.
Yes we will have greater productivity - absolutely a good thing. The issue is how that surplus will be captured. Automation and oursourcing made the world as a whole better off, however the loss of factory foreman roles was different from the loss of horse and buggy roles.
I am a novice, maybe that's why I liked it.