"Induced demand": The highway is expanded such that it only takes me 15 minutes to get downtown instead of 45, so I go downtown more.
Jevson paradox: The highway is expanded such that it only takes 15 minutes to get from the suburbs to my office instead of 45, so I move to the suburbs.
So one is movement along the demand curve, while the other is a movement of the demand curve.
Yes, but for subtly different reasons. In the case of induced demand, the supply curve shifts to the right (eg number of highway lanes increases) so we move to the right on demand curve (or quantity increases, eg more people drive). On the Jevon's paradox case, efficiency increases (eg fuel efficiency increases), so the _demand_ curve shifts (eg more people people drive).
Isn't it the same from the point of view of the consumer's calculus? If suddenly my car can do the same trip for half the fuel and in half the time, whether it's because the road is better or because my car is better, it won't affect how I'm going to use my car from then on.
Induced Demand is a poorly conceived mental model.
The concept of "Induced Demand" is easily explained by the default state of the downward sloping demand curve, and upward sloping supply curve.
In basic economic theory, if you reduce the cost of a good, more people will consume it.
e.g. the classic building a highway example; there was always demand for cheap housing with accessibility to downtowns, but the supply of cheap housing with accessibility to downtowns did not exist prior to building the highway there. The "demand curve" doesn't shift at all, you're just moving along it as perception of cost changes.
Has there ever been a case where a highway was run through the middle of nowhere and traffic didn't increase? It's intuitive why
> The concept of "Induced Demand" is easily explained by the default state of the downward sloping demand curve, and upward sloping supply curve. In basic economic theory, if you reduce the cost of a good, more people will consume it.
It is easily explained by that because that is literally the definition of induced demand (see sentence one of wikipedia). The concept has a name because its important to discuss the externalities and long term implications of that additional consumption.
w.r.t your highway example, how you define the market is extremely important and is sensitive to context. The market for "transportation between suburb X and city Y" experiences a durable change in the demand curve as a result of the construction of all that cheap housing. Both market definitions are valid but if your concern is e.g. urban sprawl then contextually one is a lot more relevant than the other. All that said, you can think of the change in the demand curve of market B not as induced demand itself, but as a consequence of realized latent demand (i.e. induced demand) in market A (cheap housing with accessibility to downtown). Alternative solutions to realizing latent demand in Market A (public transit, denser housing, etc.) have different and potentially preferable externalities which is why considering induced demand and its consequences are important.
"Induced Demand" is often, incorrectly, talked about as a shift in the demand curve in response to increase in supply.
There is no shift. I am addressing this common misunderstanding, not debating the wording in the Wikipedia article.
"Induced Demand" is a misnomer, as the demand was always there at the given price. It is not induced, just realized. If I offer you a gold bar for $0, did I induce your demand to accept it?
Most people will always have demand for goods offered below their perceived intrinsic value.
Ultimately it's semantics around definitions, but the thinking of lay people around this concept is typically more of the shifting demand curve, not realization along the existing curve
>"Induced Demand" is a misnomer, as the demand was always there at the given price.
That's not necessarily true. Suppose you're the government and you produce food for free, and every year people eat everything you make, and everyone is well-fed. You decide you want to prepare for a famine, so this year you start more farms such that next year you make 20% more food. The first two months you're able to save, but when people see that there's more food available, they change their habits and start doing even more exercise than before, and so they eat more until they eat all the food every month again.
As an aside, the concept of Induced demand has been criticized. A more precise way to think about “induced demand” is that the demand for a product at a lower price point was preexisting. The transaction didn’t clear until the price actually became lower and this demand manifested itself.
This seems like splitting a hair but it is a more consistent intellectual framework for understanding the dynamics of a particular market.
Induced demand is just the name for realized latent demand, your more precise way to think about it is the concept*. It's only muddled because it is often invoked in complex markets where the costs are often not monetary, there are substantial externalities to consider, or the supply is centrally managed.
Should a city spend $500,000 to install lighting in the park downtown? After all nobody uses it at night because its too dangerous! Induced demand is central to the answer but isn't a first thought for many because the problem space doesn't look like a traditional market.
* there is the additional concept that the long term availability of a good or service at a lower cost changes consumer behavior in a durable way. Building a new train station realizes latent demand but also creates new demand as it causes denser housing to be constructed near it**.
** Whether you want to model that as just more realized latent demand or as a consequence that's technically distinct from induced demand is IMO where a lot of the confusion comes from. If you ask me this should probably have a distinct name as it is a long-term, interrelated process that doesn't map well to sliding around supply and demand curves. Generated demand is what Bloomberg calls it but that has insane overlap with a marketing technique.
Thanks, very interesting. The term ‘induced demand’ has been used a lot in the urban transit & housing discourse. Occasionally you will see the term hijacked by NIMBYs who argue against new housing by claiming construction only serves to create more demand for housing. Or people will argue against widening highways because it will only and always just create ‘induced demand’. A more precise way of thinking about the problem is that a market will pay up to Y amount of time to get from point A to point B. It may be impossible to meet the total demand in this market at time Y with low-efficiency car transit, but a mass transit train system could saturate and address the entire market demand at price point time Y. That is, thinking more precisely about the problem can help inform policy choices.
I don't see how that is more precise. What is the definition of "demand" in that case? Anything that could ever happen at one point, or something that is actually wanted (needed?) by someone who's formulating the thought consciously?
I was just coming here to say, this looks like the fancy way to say 'induced demand'.
Why do you think this is a specific case of induced demand (as opposed to induced demand being a specific case of Jevons paradox, or the two being different words for the same thing?)
> On his drive from Texas to California, a Nevada Highway Patrol officer engineered a reason to pull him over, saying that he passed too closely to a tanker truck. The officer who pulled Stephen over complimented his driving but nevertheless prolonged the stop and asked a series of questions about Stephen’s life and travels. Stephen told the officer that his life savings was in the trunk. Another group of officers arrived, and Stephen gave them permission to search his car. They found a backpack with Stephen’s money, just where he said it would be, along with receipts showing all his bank withdrawals. After a debate amongst the officers, which was recorded on body camera footage, they decided to seize his life savings.
> After that, months passed, and the DEA missed the deadlines set by federal law for it to either return the money or file a case explaining what the government believes Stephen did wrong. So Stephen teamed up with the Institute for Justice to get his money back. It was only after IJ brought a lawsuit against the DEA to return Stephen’s money, and his story garnered national press attention, that the federal government agreed to return his money. In fact, they did so just a day after he filed his lawsuit, showing that they had no basis to hold it.
Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
And it also seems to be a matter of DEA dropping the ball, but perhaps they foot drag knowing that anyone with illegal money isn't going to ask for it back, as they'd have to explain why they had it.
I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
While you are legally allowed to refuse search of your vehicle, in practice people get brutalized for standing up for their rights all the time. The exact boundaries of your legal rights are also not clear to most people (even many lawyers) so you risk refusing an actually legal order and ending up in even more trouble.
Plus, a cop can just call for a canine squad and then get the canine to signal and then use that as probable cause for a search if they really want to fuck your day up in a way that is totally legal.
This makes the idea that you should just confidently advocate for your 4th amendment rights actually pretty unappealing.
> Plus, a cop can just call for a canine squad and then get the canine to signal and then use that as probable cause for a search if they really want to fuck your day up in a way that is totally legal.
> While officers may use a dog to sniff around a car during the course of a routine traffic stop, they cannot extend the length of the stop in order to carry it out.
At least on TV, while the first officer is "running their plates" a second k9 unit rolls up and the dog jumps around and pops the bad guy with his 50kg of contraband.
Or at least that was the way it was shown on this one episode of whatever show I saw it on.
>I wonder if Elon is going to suggest we defund the DEA as part of his "DOGE"?
I hope. Bespoke single police agencies only serve the purpose of sucking up resources to enforce stuff that a broad police agency (like the FBI) would never or could not justify allocating so many resources toward.
You get these agencies like the DEA that build up this headcount and budget and then go justify it by engaging in all sorts of bad crap. The FBI would rarely (I'm not gonna say never) waste time going after college kids for making "more than personal use" amounts of acid. If they want to waste man hours on petty things to justify their budget they have a whole laundry list of more legitimate petty things to enforce first.
Well, with all due respect to the heroic efforts of the vast majority of the DEA, if we judge them by their total success or failure, I'd have to go with "failure" as far as the US is concerned.
Being a massive drug market with people dying from drugs on a daily basis is not exactly a shining indicator of success.
That said, for the DEA to succeed we'd need a massive amount of coordination - which is to say real leadership on this issue, I think which may be beyond the DEA by itself.
> Although volunteering information about anything seems suspect.
I don't live in the USA, but to my understanding, it’s common for individuals from minority groups to be taught by their families specific behaviors for interacting with police, such as how to position their hands. I wouldn’t be surprised if this also includes notifying the police about personal belongings that could potentially raise suspicion.
As a minority, you are taught where to hold your hands. But we taught our sons - “don’t talk to the police when questioned”.
We also taught them in case they did have to call the police in case of something like a home break-in, describe themselves. We lived in a city that was less than 4% Black and was a famous “sundown town” as late as the mid 80s
> I still like Vagrant. But I believe it's yet another victim of the Hashicorp license change debacle from a year or two ago.
The license change is irrelevant - from the licensing page:
> All non-production uses are permitted.
Devs who use Vagrant in a development environment can do it as they used to do it before.
> The latest open source version is still available on the Ubuntu repo, but who knows who long it will work until somefor of bit rot occurs.
Hashicorp products have always been intended to be downloaded from the website, since they're statically linked binaries (I don't like that they're huge, but matter of factually, they make distribution trivial).
The concept of "good therapist" can be misleading, as it suggests the idea that there good therapist necessarily work well with any patient (and as a consequence, patients may give up too early in their search for a therapist). I think it's more appropriate to talk about "suitable" therapist.
In a way, it's like talking about friendships. Some people certainly have better "friendship skills" than others, but because a given person has such skills, it doesn't automatically make them a good friend to everybody.
I don't know, about 15 years ago I tried therapy for anxiety/depression.
The 1st one asked me the most basic nonsense and then told me she thinks I just drink too much coffee so I didn't go back.
The second one told me they don't believe in medication so I never went back.
The 3rd one diagnosed me with seasonal affective disorder in about 5 minutes, gave me a little prozac and changed my life.
I suspect there is an overwhelming amount of terrible therapist.
I don't think the challenge is finding a good therapist but in not getting stuck with a terrible therapist or letting a terrible therapist ruin the whole idea of therapy.
Idk which was worse in my experience, the one with basic nonsense or the one who prescribed me SSRIs after a short talk. I quit by myself after a couple of months and will never touch this crap or walk into his office again.
Sorry but to me sounds like you just embraced the first one that gave you drugs. Not that you dind't need it...but 5 minutes for a prozac prescription?! That's absurd.
> I think it's more appropriate to talk about "suitable" therapist.
Can you say any more about how a therapist might be more suitable for some patients than others? Is it about a methodology (like cognitive behavioral therapy), or about disorder(s) the therapist usually treats (like addiction), or is it something else (possibly something the patient won't discover until after treatment starts)?
I agree. I’m a bit horrified when I hear about other people’s therapists being universally affirmative yes men. Then again, other people seem to be horrified that my therapist challenges me
Therapy didn't work for me, and looking back the whole concept seems just bizarre. If you run with the assumption that at least two thirds of therapists are either terrible or just terrible for you, that means that you have to visit at least 3-5 of them, and even if you actively know this, you have to spend 3-4 sessions with them, during which you have to unconfortably open up to a complete stranger, and tell them things you wouldn't be comfortable telling to your own mother.
Imagine if any other doctor operated like that like you had to visit 3-5 endocrinologists to get a diagnosis for your thyroid disorder.
And even if you find the right guy/gal, the best they'll probably be able to do is help you help yourself, as most of the problems in ones life have external causes, and it falls to the individual to resolve them.
It's just baffling that this is considered a legitimate medical discipline in 2025.
Even though self-help is considered a meme, I found way more success with it, as flipping though 5 different books until you find the one that you like and is much easier than visiting
5 therapists. And being honest with yourself is also much easier than being honest with a complete stranger.
most of the problems in ones life have external causes
Most mental issues have internal or behavioral causes. Therapy addresses your ideas about the real world, not the real world itself. For example, it can enable a choice never seen as possible before, and while the real world stays the same, your position in it may change to something unthinkable before.
As a person who was very introvert at social gatherings, and the polar opposite now, I'm now convinced that being extrovert is not a skill or an "area" (outside the comfort zone), but rather a state of mind.
It's certainly an art and a science to be a good conversationalist, but being in that certain state of mind is "a lot %" of what's needed, and it actually takes no energy or comfort - although as other state, natural introverts enjoy this state for a certain amount of time. It can also take a lot to "get there", though.
The core problem is that introvert/extrovert has little or no bearings on someone's social ability.
Introvert/extrovert is the method that people use to recharge their energy. It has nothing to do with social ability despite the terms getting hijacked for that.
Signed, an extremely introverted person who talks and interacts a lot in social situations.
I strongly agree with that. I like being around people when I’m not expected to engage with them. I’ll go to a ball game or a crowded holiday mall any time. I like the throngs busily enjoying themselves around me. I’m an introvert but I’m not even a little reclusive.
When I first met one of my friends, I had assumed he was very extroverted from observing him at work. It was only when I really got to know him that he is, in fact, just as introverted as I am, if not more- something he even told me after we got to talking one night.
The parent post is correct: extroversion and introversion is about how you feel being in groups, not how you act.
> but being in that certain state of mind is "a lot %" of what's needed, and it actually takes no energy or comfort
Your mileage may vary but it certainly takes energy to maintain a state of mind which doesn't come naturally to you. This is bound to affect your comfort eventually. Since there are degrees of intro/extroversion, it may be easier for some people to will themselves across that divide.
It's like floating on water. Some do it naturally, effortlessly, they even rest and relax while doing it. Others have to flail around under the surface to do it, putting in effort and consuming energy.
This is an important point. Most people who I interact with would probably characterize me as an extrovert because I'm often super talkative and energetic, but the only reason I act like this is because I get time to "recharge" every day by spending time without interacting with anyone (other than my wife, who is the one person that doesn't take "energy" for me to spend time with). Even spending time with close friends and family members is something I need occasional breaks from to maintain my sanity.
I often describe this concept to people as a social "battery"; I need time to charge it (almost) every day in order to have anything to spend the next day, but it also can ruin the capacity if I charge it for too long while it's at max. Figuring out the right balance is key, especially when other circumstances can affect how much energy it feels like is expended by socializing (e.g. ambient stress level from other parts of my life.
I've ported some projects to Rust (including C, where I've used C2Rust as first step), and I've drawn some conclusions.
1. Converting a C program to Rust, even if it includes unsafe code, often uncovers bugs quickly thanks to Rust’s stringent constraints (bounds checking, strict signatures, etc.).
2. automated C to Rust conversion is IMO something that will never be solved entirely, because the design of C program is fundamentally different from Rust; such conversions require a significant redesign to be made safe (of course, not all C programs are the same).
3. in some cases, it’s plain impossible to port a program from C to Rust while preserving the exact semantics, because unsafety can be inherent in the design.
That said, tooling is essential to porting, and as tools continue to evolve, the process will become more streamlined.
> automated C to Rust conversion is IMO something that will never be solved entirely
Automated conversion of C to safe fast Rust is hard. Automated conversion of C to safe Rust in general is much easier - you just need to represent memory as an array, and treat pointers as indices into said array. Now you can do everything C can do - unchecked pointer arithmetic, unions etc - without having to fight the borrow checker. Semantics fully preserved. Similar techniques have been used for C-to-Java for a long time now.
Of course, the value of such a conversion is kinda dubious. You basically end up with something like C compiled to wasm, but even slower, and while the resulting code is technically "safe", it is still susceptible to issues buffer overflows producing invalid state, dangling pointers allowing access to data in contexts where it shouldn't be allowed etc.
You can do a lot better than that. You can treat memory ranges coming from separate allocations as distinct segments, and pointers as tuples of a segment ID and a linear offset within the segment. This is essentially what systems like CHERI are built on, and how C and C++ are implemented on segmented architectures like the 8086 and 80286. The C standard includes a somewhat limited notion of "objects" that's intended to support this exact case.
I agree in principle, and I have strong feelings based on my experience that this is the case, but I think it would be illustrative to have some hard examples in mind. Does anyone know any simple cases to ground this discussion in?
They likely mean a char* pointer to a null-terminated string, or a char* pointer and a length, as is usual for C.
If Rust was forced to expose such an API (to be on par with C's old API), it would have to use `*const u8` in its signature. Converting that to something that can be used in Rust is unsafe.
Even once converted to &[u8], it now has to deal with non-UTF8 inputs throughout its whole codebase, which is a lot more inconvenient. A lot of methods, like .split_ascii_whitespace, are missing on &[u8]. A lot of libraries won't take anything but a &str.
Or they might be tempted to convert such an input to a String, in which case the semantics will differ (it will now panic on non-UTF8 inputs).
I know Unity game engine uses some transpiler called IL2CPP that manages to preserve some of the safety features of C# but still gets the speed of CPP, so one direction is definitely possible
Oh, it's mainly for platform compatibility. IL2CPP performance is really problematic since it still carries many issues of Mono, even if transpiled to C++: https://meetemq.com/2023/09/18/is-net-8-performant-enough/ (don't look at just the starting graph - make sure to scroll down to notes where RyuJITs code competes with other fast entries or even outperforms them).
Perhaps what you were looking for is NativeAOT? Either way C ports really well to C# since it supports a large subset of it "as is" and then some with generics and other features originating from C# itself.
For home (mini) server use cases, cheap/unbranded x86 SBCs are also my favorites, especially because they can be easily expanded (I've put two disks for reliability).
Also, at least until some time ago, ARM compatibility was not always guaranteed by open source projects (I think nowadays it became ubiquitous).
In a few months there will be second hand RPi 500's on sale, presumably in the range of 40/60 $, so that price should be used for comparison against second-hand products, not the price as new.
Already explained in other comments. Devs can put whatever they want in the comments; (third party) parsers won't need to change anything, because they still treats those "special" comments as regular.
> Photography is an art form and that means you get to do whatever you want. Edit freely [...]
This has made me lose faith and interest in (most of) photography. While I can't speak for the past, modern photography often feels dishonest to me. Many photographers heavily retouch their images, yet allow viewers to believe that the final result reflects reality.
It would be more honest if photographers acknowledged that their published work is a creative interpretation rather than a direct representation of reality. But of course, admitting this would diminish the "wow" factor.
True, they are for likes. Images with the most likes are kind of kitschy to me, sunset, mountains, or stuff like that. As a mediocre, or even bad photographer i can photograph whatever pleases me, and as amateur I am out of that race.
reply