Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

elpasi

New Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About elpasi

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My LL is having a similar issue. After raising rents a little too hard a few months back in a shared property, she's now finding nobody willing to take the last room at that price. Since it's inclusive of bills, this is causing quite some desperation! On the bright side, she's reasonable - she says that whatever price she does find someone to take that room at, she'll reduce the rest of our rents to (since the rooms are all very similar in size).
  2. AI has a few ways of getting around this, but I really just want to focus on one. If you are building a 'deciding machine' which, given a set of inputs, determines which to accept in order to maximise some overall property of the outputs (e.g., given applicants, select only ones that are profitable to our business/given a set of treatments, select the most cost effective drug for the number of days the patient's life is extended/given a set of treatments, select the drug that causes the patient the least side effects for the remainder of their palliative care), then you end up with two separate issues to contend with: Assuming all inputs are known to be correct, how do you generate the calculation? Can you provide a labelled dataset sufficiently large to describe all outcomes? If I am a bank, I likely have a relatively comprehensive corpus of all loan applications and whether they defaulted, and can allow the machine to derive the indicators of a poor choice to loan (food for thought: how would it be possible for me to ensure the algorithm generated was not sexist or racist or class-ist?). If I am a hospital, I have no way to say if a given A&E prescription would have been the least side-effect-inducing, because I only got to try one or two of them before they died. In this case, do I implement my own algorithm (which naturally causes the machine to have the exact same flaws as the human), or do I need to assume that experiments where different people are given different drugs and their mortality observed is indicative of the population as a whole and allow AI to learn from those? Do the gaps in the machine's knowledge (e.g. suspicions of gender/race effects of a drug for which there is a lack of formal research for the AI to have ingested) therefore mean a medical professional is actually better and has good reason to override? If the medical professional didn't override, and the patient suffered significantly, we'd have a datapoint for the algorithm to fix it in future. However, we can't know if the AI was correct if the doctor overrides it, and can't 'learn' based on the human choice as that's a step backwards from moving to AI. Assuming all choices are correct if we have the right information, how do we validate the data? For some things, like financial position, I think we're already seeing HMRC moving to mass-integration with banks. We're seeing midata on internet banking and the suggestion of read-only accounts for automated data parsing. We could move to a world where there is no form. Where you do not certify anything except prove your identity, the machine calculates the rest from data it has from hundreds of partners. Alternatively, we could say that there is still a form, but that the same checking goes on behind the scenes, and the quantity of lies forms yet another data point for the classification. Naturally, some things will always be based on humans. The chart the doctor fills in and notes your pain on - this is only subjective but forms a significant part of selecting which drug or potency of painkiller to be using on you. Computer Science regularly states that AI is a big, hard, messy thing. The simplest bits are coming out, yes, and they appear highly intelligent, but if you look behind the curtain they can have some very peculiar results. Overfitting can be a big one, or illogical fitting - "If the applicant's surname begins with an E, it has been determined that the user is 10.6% less likely to default.". So when it comes to your thought experiment and to the 'disingenuous' claim that the AI will be subordinate, I have three thoughts. When being developed and run for the first time, systems will essentially be shadowing the human, giving a suggestion, and likely often being ignored or providing the operator with confidence. (I was going to say X, the machine said X, therefore X is probably right!) This stage could take completely different amounts of time for different fields. We might be okay with a system being let loose on a factory in a year, but a self-driving car after ten. However, what you do at this point depends on how people feel about technology at that point. I'm sure in some manufacturing places with big spinning blades, they still want giant red STOP buttons all over the place that they can use as an emergency cut-out. The AI community almost has to say this to stop fears. No new technology is just thrown into the market and completely replaces the old one. There is a transitional process, and for the purpose of this transition, people being encouraged to try it have to feel like they still have some form of control. I would not be surprised if self-driving cars have their steering wheels removed by around 2030. However, I don't think it's disingenuous. I think what they're saying is that it will be subordinate until the majority of people stop caring if it's subordinate or not, and start telling the AI people to automate that final step. When the market need is worth investing to meet, then they will. I don't think the human professionals will go away. I think they will move into technology. They will be the men and women who ensure that appropriate safeguards are put on the system. The firm, inflexible rules that the system should not have to learn by making mistakes, and that it should not be assumed that the system will automatically learn (e.g. the system says "Oh, look, we can fit four cars side-by-side on this [three lane] road if we use the dotted road markings to denote where the CENTRE of the car should be!" - things like the highway code should just be fed in, and a machine is not writing the highway code.)
  3. I admit I'm wrong! My SD stream had such poor quality that it wasn't clear enough to read. However, I've just gone through and rewound the HD channel on the TiVo and you're absolutely right, this all was one call, so she was completely coerced into it without an offer being passed on. I'd go back and edit my post but I don't have the ability to.
  4. One thing worth noting. It sounds like he says "OK. I'll have to get on to the client" directly after she says £60k. Also, the bit that could just be fobbing is 12 minutes long. Look at the clock on the top right of the central console. The £60k comment is at 10:23, and the £75k comment is at 10:34. It's entirely possible these were two phone calls spliced together by editing, in which the EA has talked to the seller between to decline.
  5. Again, and this is just me trying to work out what technicality their excuse was... "Oh, she said she was THINKING of £60k. She didn't tell me this was a formal offer, I took this as her asking for advice as to whether her thought was going to work! I was simply advising her that £60k wasn't in line with the seller's thoughts, and that £75k would be more appropriate. I was never instructed to offer £60k, and she immediately asked me to offer £75k instead. I complied with her specific requests." I don't disagree for a moment it was scummy and manipulative. But I bet there's some reason that what was done was in the grey area between legal and illegal, even if it was completely on the 'wrong' side of right or wrong.
  6. And both were terrible for their effort! So we have a guy working constantly designing and crafting things that a limited set of people would like, trying to add artistic flair and ultimately excluding people who just want a simple box to live in, constantly trying to be unique in development after development (it just takes one misstep to be stuck with a property nobody wants if each one is like marmite)... And we have two people who didn't just pay 50% over what they wanted to for a property, but also maxed out credit cards to afford the refurbishment, managed a project without understanding how long it would take, performed wallpaper steaming and final decoration on their own, AND had to pay four months of utilities and taxation... for a combined return of under £15k, which is less than £2000 per month per person. And yet they still want to continue down this path! Both deluded. Seriously.
  7. Did he actually refuse, though? I agree that the EA gave them the impression that it wasn't worth pursuing such an offer, and that they needed to do better, but did they actually state it, or just give partial facts to the point where the ladies made up their own minds on the matter? Just the same as not being able to state that I have a cancer cure here, but I can claim that it removes toxins known to contribute to cancer...
  8. I have to agree. I had no idea that the data was so rich or valuable. I thought that my script would be a one off or maybe a once-a-month thing to see progress. However, it's evident that there's so much hiding in the data sets which the media organisations don't exactly report on...
  9. The cynic in me says that it's because four times salary means no homes at all. 20% under valuation still gives a tidy profit after the ongoing, rampant house price spikes.
  10. I love good debate and argument. I keep an open mind and am always willing to change my mind given the right input from the other side. However, in the case of this email, I just wanted to deconstruct all the things that irked me and wound me up, and closed me off to any kind of positive emotional reaction.
  11. The email shown may have value, but it's based on one single example from what sounds like a pretty good landlord. We can't generate a policy where we never cause negative things to happen to good people. There's no "Oh, you give lots to charity? You'd better be exempt from the next tax rise" clause. I'm actually going to take some of the points of the email, though, to point out areas where it's not quite so valid. Things I haven't mentioned are actually probably decent points, I'm not cutting them out to make the email look worse than it is. Much the same as the person writing this is no economist or expert in government policy, so how dare they stick their oar in!? If we all had to have intimate knowledge of the area we were about to interact with, we'd need an MP who was a practicing bricklayer, one who was an expert on cemetery building, one who dealt with bus services... Baiting. Not an argument, just a cheap, uncalled-for shot. Perhaps, but I'd assume you have a stockpile of money locked up in property and in other areas where it's cycling around, not measured as income. Not being a higher rate taxpayer can just be a measure of skill in working around the system. A significant amount more demand for starter homes would have had the homebuilders tripping over their own feet to build more. There's only so high demand can get before prices stop rising, particularly because starter homes have an upper price cap. I bought 1000 shares of AAPL. WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTE A POLICY THAT BENEFITS APPLE SO I GET A RETURN ON MY MONEY? WAAAH! WAAAH! Investment is a risk, where you accept that you may not see a return. A property unoccupied for fourteen years sounds like one that should have been at a price that a family of four could have picked up on their own. Maybe we just need policies to encourage picking up and doing up your own house. Nonetheless, thank you for doing up the housing stock, just bear in mind that you've not done it for the renters' benefit, you've done it for your own return. Owner occupiers could have taken that risk. Also, the claim that you helped the whole estate to go in that direction is an assertion lacking in proof. Irrelevant. This is about doing up a property that is not for rent, to subsequently sell on. Sounds to me like you're weakening your own point by saying "Look, you can live in a place while doing it up, as an owner occupier". You do not have to be a landlord to add a granny annexe and re-sell. Nope, landlords, in aggregate, have pushed prices up and created a market of their own where they compete to get the most individual bedrooms at the lowest price, and subsequently let them out at the highest rental amount possible. Housing is under significant pressure. He doesn't have to be on the bandwagon to express a view. Two unrelated points glued together. Yes, landlords perform required checks, namely gas safety, fitting of regulated alarms, and checking of electrics. There is no legal obligation to PAT test. Also, just checking the regulated things, as is your duty (don't pretend you'd do it if you didn't have to) doesn't constitute the safest housing in the land. Do you check the roof? Do you check the gutters? Do you check for subsidence? Notice how when it comes to things that aren't mandatory, you don't do them! It's begrudging testing to fill a checklist, and you shouldn't take the moral high ground about that. Are you a business or a charity? A business has to remain competitive, and your tenants should be capable of that. You seem to be emotionally linked to this, and it's going to lead to bad decisions for you. If your own inability to treat your business as a business leads to you going bankrupt, that's your fault for being a bad businessperson. What's more, that's going to lead to all the tenants being kicked out, and undo all of this hard work you've been doing trying to keep a roof over their heads. Owner occupiers could have done this. There's nothing special about a landlord doing this instead. So they added to the residential stock by removing from the commercial stock. Now we're just going to have to build more commercial property instead. We're almost at the point where I want to coin a hashtag for #NotAllLandlords. Congratulations! Now you're getting it! "I'll never raise rents" is a dumb policy for a business that the government is going to treat like a business. Raising rents 12% after years and years of no rises is still low, and you're to be commended. Anyone else who has low gearing is also in just as good of a position, and leaves us with a wonderful rental market. Why argue with this and encourage highly geared landlords who want to swing rental up year after year just to stay afloat? No proof that it's going to hit the poorest, especially not people who are already homeless. We have legislation sat in parliament to do things about this already. Hopefully it hits the landlords and they realise that if they raise the rents they suffer a void period that's even worse for them. You can't just pass on the taxes and expect this to work uniformly across the country. Also, get away from here with the whole 'if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem' reasoning. This just serves to make your spiteful email less readable, especially with all of the moral high ground grandstanding. Was this therapy for you rather than an attempt to actually make a good point? It will almost certainly lead to student loans increasing and therefore not make the first bit of difference. It's not the way things work because if a landlord sells up, in the current climate, ANOTHER LANDLORD buys. If we actually saw a mass exodus where market forces drag prices lower, a renter would move into the ownership arena, freeing up a rental property. When a landlord sells up, if a first time buyer picks up the property, we have another landlord with a void period trying desperately to encourage another tenant to come and pick up the place. Nope, you just think that arguments require ad-hominem attacking every other sentence. This was a pain to read and had nowhere near the effect you wanted it to. And it's a shame, because in the middle of the diatribe there were actually some good points from someone who sounds like a good, responsible landlord. Persuasion is a skill you have to master to have your voice heard, not shouting, and you're just plain not good at that.
  12. BS17 isn't a postcode area any more. The internet seems to imply it was removed and recoded in October 1997. Rightmove doesn't recognise it, and therefore can't generate data for it.
  13. I've taken the tech talk off into PM, but I really appreciate the fact that you value my effort! Glad to see some other techies around here.
  14. It's actually all Rightmove. Although I don't want to announce it too loudly, in case they hear and take it away... you can request a larger range than the two years they artificially limit you to, and they actually have that data as well.
  15. Drop me a line if you want to talk about getting access to it, guys. The reason I'm saying that is fourfold: Rightmove seem very protective of people trying to scrape the page, threatening complete blocking of my charting script. I've already got rate limiting for requests set at one every sixty seconds, so the last thing I want is to have you all constantly receiving "Sorry, try again in 46 seconds" screens because you're all competing for that one request allowed each minute. This was made in my free time, and I have absolutely 0% guarantee that it's correct data. I haven't done full testing, and I'm constantly fiddling around the edges. I make no guarantee of functionality or data accuracy, and I don't want to proclaim it 'open' in such a state. You might notice, for example, the legend is on the later charts, but the first chart doesn't show it at all. That's just one of those things added on a whim without any consideration for other users' use-cases. The more people that are interested, the less experimental I can be. This is all hosted off my personal domain. I've got other more important things on it that I want to remain stable, and I don't want my host to yank me offline under the grounds of any claims by Rightmove or my activity looking malicious. There's no UI! You have to edit the URL to enter the settings you want to build the graphs. There's no way this is ready for the primetime.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.