> "For those unfamiliar, these rent/buy calculators attempt to estimate the cash flow over XX years for renting vs buying a home. For buying, this is the down payment, mortgage, taxes, etc, and then crucially selling the appreciated home after XX years. For renting, this is mostly rent, but also crucially investment income from investing the money that would have gone into the mortgage/down payment. When I recalculate these numbers, all I'm doing is saying that the default home appreciation rate and the investment appreciation rate should be updated in the tool, and showing the result of that."
When you buy a home, you pay a down payment you counterfactually could have invested (and any difference in rent vs. mortgage can be invested). The article is just saying the calculators skew towards buying by underestimating investment growth and overestimating housing appreciation.
Modern programming already is very, very far from strict obedience and formal symbolism. Most programmers these days (myself included!) are using libraries, frameworks, and other features that mean what they are doing in practice is wielding sky-high abstractions, gluing things together they do not (and can not) fully understand the inner workings of.
If I create a website with Node.js, I’m not manually managing memory, parsing HTTP requests byte-by-byte, or even attempting to fully grasp the event loop’s nuances. I’m orchestrating layers of code written by others, trusting that these black boxes will behave as advertised according to my best, but deeply incomplete, understanding of them.
I'm not sure what this means for LLMs programming, but I already feel separated from the case Dijkstra lays out.