We used to use irc at my company, mostly because it's what we're all used to using in the past. But maintaining it was kind of a pain in the ass, and as the company grew larger it became more difficult to use and to keep track of who is who. For example, people who have known me for years know my irc name is bratsche, but newer people have trouble finding me on irc.
We're using Slack now and this is not an issue. The search capabilities are nice occasionally, although when I was trying to search yesterday through a private conversation history it only gave me results from public rooms so I finally just had to scroll up a few days to find what I was looking for. Bookmarks/stars are a really nice, simple feature that is incredibly useful though. If someone says something and you think you're going to need to come back to that, just bookmark it right there. I remember years ago having conversations on irc and either copy/pasting into notes files or even taking screenshots of the window so I could come back to it. :)
Damn, thanks for pointing me in that direction. It's exactly what I've been looking for.
Technically, I implemented some of that stuff myself because I needed REST client that would work with PCLs and be a bit 'nicer' to use than just juggling strings/routes everywhere, so using annotations and wrapping Microsoft's HttpClient was obvious and relatively easy way out.
Anyway, I'll probably just phase out my own solution and start using the library.
After checking it out, RefitStubs.cs file seems a little bit clunky, but the library as a whole looks solid enough. I'll look further into it.
On the other hand, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to ship a T4 template? I know for sure that would integrate with VS (both the IDE and build process) without any issues, not sure about Xamarin Studio...
That seems like a pretty solvable behavioral problem. I hesitate to recommend using some todo application since todo apps have turned into kind of a joke in the last few years, but.. maybe try using a todo app?
Why use a todo app that requires me to grab my phone, unlock, start an app and enter a todo item, when I could instead just press a button that'll be right in front of me at the moment I notice I'll need more of some product soon?
> It's taken me 2 weeks so far to remember to get it. I go to the store almost daily. :(
This is a behavior that isn't going to change by having a thousand buttons all over your house. Maybe you won't ever worry about running out of detergent or dogfood again, but there's always something else. "Oh shit, I bought pasta for dinner but I forgot to buy pasta sauce!" What's the solution, get a pasta sauce button?
I see nothing wrong with dedicating a wall of my kitchen entirely to Amazon buttons for everything in my fridge and pantry. :)
As I mentioned in another comment, though, a better system would probably be to use some cheap, single-purpose wall-mountable tablet computer (probably e-Ink based, maybe even with a column of physical buttons instead of a touchscreen to bring costs down to a pittance) that one could load up with a list of products that need to be routinely reordered for a partiuclar room. If prices could be brought down considerably (if not free with Prime membership, as is being proposed for these Dash buttons), this could be pretty viable.
(This is mildly unfair to SF, which actually has a higher population density than Minato-ku, principally because Minato-ku is not a residential neighborhood. But if SF was serious about affordable housing, it would look like Minato-ku rather than "miles of two-story buildings.")
> I've read before that the city doesn't want to build up too much because they want to retain some of their character or something.
That's kind of the point. The city has several conflicting goals: make it an affordable place to live, don't allow new growth to change the character of the place, attract high paying jobs, don't widen the roads, attract new residents without kicking out old ones, etc.
Rent control is one of the tools they use to try to balance between these conflicting goals. The fundamental problem is that every serious economist says that rent control is a losing battle, and it never truly works anywhere it's been tried. There really aren't any rent control success stories from anywhere in the world. At some point, the city has to realize it can't achieve its conflicting goals, and it will need to prioritize: is it more important to have affordable housing or more important to limit the number of places to live in the city?
It's worse than a losing battle; it actually makes the housing problem worse. It's good for the lucky few who end up in rent-controlled housing, but most of the people who can't afford $4k/mo rents also aren't that lucky.
How does it make the housing problem worse in San Francisco?
If we assume that the NIMBY crowd will continue to block new development and other interests will continue to block increases to the high limits for new construction across much of the city, then what would elimination of rent control do, other than ensure that every renter in the city was paying ~$2500+/month per bedroom?
I have this idea that the monthly payments on the mortgages required to purchase a condo are a pretty good approximation of where rents would be without rent control. With pretty much every condo sale price sitting at or north of $1 million, it doesn't look pretty.
Rent control isn't the only thing distorting San Francisco's market. But San Francisco won't get any more affordable until it gives up on the policy.
However, looking at the original post, I strongly suspect that the landlord isn't planning to rent out the apartment after the tenant is evicted. I think the letter looks a lot more like a landlord trying to get out of the business. Rent control, and other regulations, discourage people from offering places for rent. Sometimes that is intentional, for instance, as a policy to get rid of tenements. But often it's a surprise to the people writing the regulations. They honestly don't realize that each additional form they want people to fill out discourages people from being in business in any way.
Getting rid of rent control would get rid of some of that disincentive and put some places back on the market.
I recently moved from the Reno area to the New York area (well, New Jersey; but I work in New York). I spent a lot of time in the Bay Area over the last few years. I really would like to see it stop pursuing economically backwards policies, but I think it's more likely that economically illiterate politicians will finally manage to kill what makes Silicon Valley unique, and people will move to other places.
The "NIMBY crowd" also must stop blocking new development. SF desperately needs new housing development at a scale unprecedented in its recent history.
In the meantime, all rent control does is create an arms race between property owners and tenants, one the tenants will all gradually lose. It also eliminates incentives to renovate or even more productively use existing housing stock.
Rent controlled apartments are effectively removed from the supply of housing in the market. Thus, anyone who isn't lucky enough to get a rent controlled apartment (which are most people) faces a market with decreased supply and thus higher prices. It's one of the economically proven ironies of rent control -- higher prices for everyone else.
In a free market yes, but not in a speculation market that does not respond market demands (combined with macroeconomic mechanisms and manipulations from the Federal Government). Going beyond simplistic supply/demand, high speculation markets have constrained economic growth, and many governments, such as HK or South Korea, have taken measures control it as well. It's not that the cost in the area rise, but also startup cost for new enterprises becomes to high, making it difficult for startups and new innovations they create.
Rent control is a deliberate tradeoff between price stability for existing tenants and supply (and therefore market clearing price for new leases.) So the supply effect isn't an irony, it's part of the chosen tradeoff.
Can you find a source that acknowledges that rent control is a deliberate attempt to trade additional scarcity for price stability for incumbent residents? I can't find one. I'm a little concerned that this is an instance of retconning.
Well the geography and political climate of San francisco and its surrounding towns make this pretty difficult. It's a small city in a major earthquake zone, with tons of hills, surrounded by water and suburban neighbors who consistently vote down any expansion of the existing rapid transit system. Any new transportation infrastructure would take literally decades (see California's coming high speed rail line).
Only problem is politics. Japan has all that and pulled it off a bit too well. Similar goes for the crazy sandcastlers like Singapore.
I can't blame them (SF-dwellers) they had someting rare in the US for a little time. And general ignorance in, general ignorance out, that's local municipal politics, due to short-term incentives and big "costs" of initiating any kind of change or shift to a longer term horizon, nothing will change fast enough, so a lot of people will get bitten by these problems.
This is already happening: the area just north of Bay Bridge looks like Berlin after the wall came down. In my opinion, it has positive feedback and will increase prices even further. Money attracts more money. See New York or Hong Kong- they've built up too.
As the economy becomes global, the rise of super expensive cities is inevitable: London, New York, Hong Kong, San Francisco.
Oregon has plenty of charming and cheap real estate for non-participants in the global economy.
On Mission street in my neighborhood alone there are at lease 3 large lots with derelict buildings on them and they've been that way for years. There are quite a few other smaller parcels on Mission and smaller streets.
If we want to take housing seriously, let's start with a law that says "If the building is abandoned for 5 years, you lose it, it becomes housing."
In all seriousness though, I'm fairly certain that a repurposed cruise ship turned luxury condo building anchored off the coast with a free, regular speed boat shuttle could be a profitable business given the bonkers prices in SF proper.
Some cities actually do stuff like that. You can can anchor large, cheap boats in Paris on the Seine (you pay a rent for that of course,but its much cheaper - closer to a parking spot).
Then these boats are made into single apartments. They're larger than most apartments in fact. There is electricity and water included, the only thing you need to get wirelessly is internet (which is rather easy).