I don’t live in London but have traveled for work weeks at a time. Coming from a car focused area, I think this sentiment is surprising. I think the London Underground is one of the best things about London and preferring to widen roads and highways sounds extremely backwards for me who lived in a very car focused area. I don’t think it’s appreciated just how great the underground is compared to other transport systems around the world.
I’ve lived both, car centric US/Canada and London. At first public transport seems great but over time the realization sets in about how uncomfortable it is (no seat warmers, cleanliness, having your face in people’s armpits) and inconvenient it is (not door to door) and that wouldn’t be so bad but then the unreliability (signal issues) and expense of the tickets and tax subsidies makes it a bad deal. It should exist as an option, I’m glad it does so I can have less traffic on the roads, but it’s overrated. HS2 in the article is this expensive just to build, imagine the maintenance costs for the next century. Whether you use it or not, residents will have to pay for it.
Unlike roads? How exactly do you think roads are paid for, if not by 100% tax subsidies? TfL doesn’t get any tax subsidies anyway, the Tories got rid of that years ago.
> imagine the maintenance costs for the next century. Whether you use it or not, residents will have to pay for it.
It essentially makes sure that your results can reproducibly be generated from your original data. If any script or data file is changed, the parts of your pipeline that depend on it, possibly recursively, get re-run and the relevant results get updated automatically.
There's no chance of e.g. changing the structure of your original dataset slightly, forgetting to regenerate one of the intermediate models by accident, not noticing that the script to regenerate it doesn't work any more due to the new dataset structure, and then getting reminded a year later when moving to a new computer and trying to regen everything from scratch.
It's a lot like Unix make, but with the ability to keep track of different git branches and the data / intermediates they need, which saves you from needing to regen everything every time you make a new checkout, lets you easily exchange large datasets with teammates etc.
In theory, you could store everything in git, but then every time you made a small change to your scripts that e.g. changed the way some model works and slightly adjusted a score for each of ten million rows, your diff would be 10m LOC, and all versions of that dataset would be stored in your repo, forever, making it unbelievably large.
The second part of this comment seems strange to me. Surely nothing on Hacker News is shared with the expectation that it will be interesting, or useful, to everyone. Equally, surely there are some people on HN who will be interested in a framework, even if it might be too heavy for other people.
It doesn’t force you to use any of the extra functionality. My team has been using it just for the version control part for a couple years and it has worked great.
Yep. I personally like DVC's pipeline implementation because it's lightweight and language-agnostic, but haven't gotten into using their experiment tracking features.
DVC support multiple remotes. S3 is one of them, there are also WebDAV, local FS, Google Drive, and a bunch of others. You could see the full list here [0]. Disclaimer: not affiliated with DVC in anyway, just a user.
It's not just to manage file versioning. Yo can define a pipeline with different stages, the dependencies and outputs of each stage and DVC will figure out which stages need running depending on what dependencies have changed. Stages can also output metrics and plots, and DVC has utilities to expose, explore and compare those.
It will be interesting to take the data and normalize it by population density. It won’t be a perfect metric since I’m guessing a lot of these plumes will have their source material sourced from elsewhere e.g. landfills, recycling centers, manufacturing
I’m not familiar with the regulations but I always thought the benefit of not using gas stoves was less about the environment and more to reduce the CO2 produced in a home. It seems like there are correlation with in house stove usage in poorly ventilated homes and adverse health conditions. I definitely see a huge spike in my CO2 monitor each time we cook with our gas stove. Better ventilation probably addresses this but I honestly don’t know which approach is easier to implement.
Ventilation is good even with electric, just to deal with pollutants being put off by the food being cooked. As I understand it, these are often worse than the combustion byproducts, but I'm not well informed on the composition of each kind of pollution.
So I think in either case, kitchens should have good ventilation. Fortunately, it's just an ingress and egress hole in the house with a fan. If trying to retain the moisture and temperature of indoor air, it's more complicated because heat may have to be exchanged and air dehumidified (though kitchen air is often hotter and wetter than general air conditioned air).
However, this is also true of ventilation needed to prevent well insulated houses from getting damp and moldy and removing other indoor pollutants, such as from off-gassing of new home goods, etc. In summary, we need ventilation period. It should be a part of building codes and it should be done in a way that is appropriate to the local climate.
I'll be buying a house in the next few years and if I'm allowed to get gas, I'm not actually sure if I will or not. Customarily it's what I've used and it works well for my needs, but induction has advantages. I'm open to it. If I had my pick, I'd probably have a mix of induction and gas ranges, but maybe I'd look into induction and be sold. I just don't want this forced on me on with such thing rationale.
I live in NYC and I don’t agree that congestion pricing would not help anyone. Also saying there are more bike lanes than real roads is just false? I’m not sure where you’re getting that. I want congestion pricing and still hope it goes through. I’m honestly surprised someone who lives in NYC believes it won’t be useful, especially since similar setups have been working in other cities.
