My favorite example of this from last night:

Me: Let's figure out how to clone our company Wordpress theme in Hugo. Here're some tools you can use, here's a way to compare screenshots, iterate until 0% difference.

Codex: Okay Boss! I did the thing! I couldn't get the CSS to match so I just took PNGs of the original site and put them in place! Matches 100%!

Ownership share is a stock. Prices get set by flow - transactions. Housing is a thin market; maybe 5-6% of homes change hands in a given year. Price discovery happens at that transaction layer.

Institutional investors own ~3% of single-family rentals nationally. But per CoreLogic they're 29% of purchases in the starter home tier. That's the market where we first-time buyers actually compete.

In some metros it's more concentrated.

Atlanta: ~30% of single-family rentals corporate-owned.

Charlotte neighborhoods in 2022: 50%!!! of sales to institutional buyers.

So for your 1-2-3... maybe something like?

1. Institutional buyers concentrate in starter homes where they're 29% of transactions, not 3% of stock

2. Target metros/neighborhoods go higher still

3. Real estate uses comps-based pricing - their winning bids propagate to surrounding valuations

The mechanism isn't inventory control, it's just a buyer with a different utility function (rental yield vs owner-occupancy) systematically outbidding price-sensitive first-time buyers. In a thick market that gets arbitraged away. In a thin market with sparse comps, each transaction is a price-setting event.

The St. Louis Fed found institutional presence specifically increases price-to-income ratios in the bottom tier.

If you're evil corporate Landlordman You don't need to affect the whole market. You just need to cut off the bottom rung of the ladder.

Is this Trump move the right one? No frickin idea! But I do think we need to reckon with what's actually happening to first-time homebuyers. I bought a place in Englewood Co last year and ... it was pretty rough.

Let's say that they are 100% correct, we parse the subtext as text, it was totally him.

We still do not know the critical details of how (and when) he stored the root password he copied out of their password manager (encrypted in his own password manager? on his pwned laptop? in dropbox? we'll never know!) therefore the whole chain of custody is still broken.

AWS account root access on a language package registry for 11 days. Not EC2 root - AWS account root. Complete control over IAM, S3, CloudTrail, every-damn-thing.

They're claiming "no evidence of compromise" based on CloudTrail logs that AWS root could have deleted or modified. They even admit they "Enabled AWS CloudTrail" after regaining control - meaning CloudTrail wasn't running during the compromise window.

You cannot verify supply chain integrity from logs on a system where root was compromised, and you definitely can't verify it when the logs didn't exist (they enabled them during remediation?).

So basically, somebody correct me here if I'm wrong but ... Every gem published Sept 19-30 is suspect. Production Ruby applications running code from that window have no way to verify it wasn't backdoored. The correct response is to freeze publishing, rebuild from scratch (including re-publishing any packages published at the time? Ugh I don't even know how to do this! ) , and verify against offline backups. Instead they rotated passwords and called it done.