Grazing on leftover Forkable lunches is one of the great pleasures of going into the office now. I eat my regular lunch at noon. At three or four, I do a lap to see if there are any unclaimed leftovers from folks who didn't make it in. I might eat one right there, or hide it in the fridge to take home later. It's like a VC-funded loot box - will I get a sandwich? Some curry? Dim sum? The possibilities are endless.
Shoup wrote a LOT about how charging too little for parking leads to everyone using it, which makes parking worse for everyone involved. San Francisco charges about $50c a day for residential street parking in areas that have a parking permit zone - which is decided on a block by block basis. Most street parking in SF is completely free.
Raise prices even slightly, and people's behaviors will adjust accordingly. I have a friend who street parked two cars until he moved to a different neighborhood and had to start paying for permits. Now he just keeps his commuter and leaves his overlander in the suburbs.
In the case of San Francisco it is a state law that limits cities to charging only as much as it costs to administer the program. San Francisco cannot have responsive residential parking under state law.
I guess the solution would be to make these spots 2/4 hr parking, instead of permanent overnight parking for all. Or remove parking all together and make it easy to build private parking lots.
SF's lack of grade separated transport outside the narrow BART corridor also makes it hard to convince people out of driving. Buses and trams aren't acceptable alternatives for a city as rich and dynamic as SF.
I think they can be more creative. Hire an administrator of residential parking and pay them $100 million. Also have a special 100% marginal income tax for city employees earning over a million.
No, according to this article by Chris Elmendorf and Darien Shanske https://www.spur.org/news/2020-12-18/how-solve-transit-budge..., Proposition 218, 26, and the California Vehicle Code probably do not prohibit market pricing of residential parking permits as endorsed by Donald Shoup, since street parking is not just a fee-based service, but city-owned land that the city has the right to rent at market rate. San Francisco just hasn’t tried.
Speaking of having not tried, that legal theory could be right but it's novel. On the one hand you have Elmendorf's hypothesis, and on the other you have every city attorney in the state.
What does administer the program mean in this case? Does it include the maintenance? It could also include the property tax the city pays itself for the valuable land that is being kept available.
The High Cost of Free Parking is a wonderful book and I would recommend it to anyone. Parking - and car-centric development - shapes our day to day lives in tremendously powerful ways.
I think OAuth can complement computer use. Imagine if an agent went through an OAuth flow to get an access token, and was able to use that access token to interact with the same UI that a human interacted with. You'd get a few benefits:
- The human wouldn't need to share their password information with the agent
- Services would be able to block or ask for approval when agents take sensitive actions. Maybe an e-commerce site is happy to let an agent browse and add items to a cart, but wants a human in the loop for checkout.
- Services would be able to attribute any actions taken to the agent on behalf of the user. Did Joe approve this expense report, or did Joe's agent approve this expense report?
This is why I'm so bullish on OAuth for sites with logins - you get a strong real user identity to tie the agent's behavior back to. This means you have (some) proof that the agent is helping your end users consume more of your site, and you can also revoke access to agents that misbehave.
It's pretty uncommon. Most of my teammates' code is close to my standard -- I am referred to as the "technical lead" even though it's not an official title, but teammates do generally try to code to my standard, so it's pretty good code. If I'm doing a one-off bug fix or trying to understand what the code does, usually reading it is sufficient. If I'm taking some level of shared ownership of the code, I'm hopefully talking a lot with the person who wrote it. I'm very choosy about open-source libraries so it's rare that I need to dig into that code at all. I don't use any ecosystems like React that tempt you to just pull in random half-baked components for everything.
The conflux of events requiring me to debug someone else's code would be someone who wrote bad code without much oversight, then left the company, and there's no budget to fix their work properly. Not very common. Since I usually know what the code is supposed to be doing, such code can likely be rewritten properly in a small fraction of the original time.
What does the additional .09% of purity get you - if the xenon or nitrous is mixed with air at inhalation time anyway? For example, divers and pilots use ABO oxygen which is only 99.5% pure.
It's often what the 0.9% is that makes the difference between grades, other than purity.
Generally and as an illustration, a chemical may have a 99% "reagent" grade that includes industrial solvents or some other chemicals that are toxic to ingest. So its equivalent "food" grade may have the same 99% purity but the other 1% is something that isn't poisonous.
My chemistry teacher pointed out to our class that "99%" ethanol was distilled in benzene, and therefore had poisonous residue, whereas "95%" was water distilled, and thus safe to spike your OJ.
Such toxins are added to make the alcohol unsuitable for human consumption, and thus avoid paying government alcohol tax or duty.
Where I am it's called "methylated spirits" and IIRC the boing point of the additive is very close to that of the alcohol so it's not possible to distill it out.
20 years ago I read about a Dutch company that sold pure alcohol for consumption to Russia, where people would drink one sip of pure alcohol followed by two sips of orange juice.
Hopefully the only country with a market for that.
Hypoxic altitude tents have always interested me as a runner living in sea-level San Francisco. You're supposed to sleep in them for a few weeks in order to simulate being at higher elevation. However, they're apparently pretty terrible to use - the vacuum is loud enough to disrupt sleep, the inside of the tent is supposed to get hot and sticky, and you need to spend 12+ hours a day to get real benefits. If you're mountaineering, the suffering might be worth it, but if you're a hobby jogger the sleep disruptions alone negate the performance impact of the EPO boost. Supposedly.
But Xenon?
> Furtenbach, whose training rides and runs have been 10 percent faster for days after xenon-fuelled climbs...
Xenon and Argon doping are officially banned by WADA. So while obviously you will get away with it if you aren't one of the top athletes on the planet, you will technically be cheating if you breathe Xenon then run in the San Francisco Marathon.
I listened to a podcast recently about a hypoxic training that was interesting. The company makes masks and different levels of equipment for different uses. For me it a simple curiosity, I need to work on recovering from ~1.5 years taking care of an ill family member. Maybe then it is worth a thought but for me it seems unlikely to really appeal.
> For me it a simple curiosity, I need to work on recovering from ~1.5 years taking care of an ill family member. Maybe then it is worth a thought but for me
Hypoxic training would be detrimental to an untrained athlete. Restricting your oxygen intake would reduce the volume and duration of exercise you could tolerate, which would slow your progress.
So please don't use a hypoxic training mask. It would do the opposite of what you want to achieve.
Even within athletes the benefits of hypoxic training for general performance are questionable once you get away from people with a vested interest in pushing it (like the person interviewed in your podcast).
Oh I'm very much a dabbler, before I consider hypoxic training there is so much room for athletic optimization in my life. Including focusing on a few activities instead of rowing, skiing, biking, occasional bouldering, etc. I was listening out of curiosity, not for my own use.
I'm back at sea level, but when I was living between sea level and the mountains I could feel the lag in my runs when I switched and gained elevation.
Depends on the pothole, but for some, driving at a higher speed is actually better than lower speed (short and deep ones) - the wheels just don't have enough time to fall significantly.
I believe the wheels still fall the same amount (the springs are pushing them down) but the suspension works faster/more efficiently. Once the wheel either bottoms out in the pothole or hits the trailing edge, the spring sends the wheel up faster due to the energy from the impact. The shock is thus pushed up faster, and upon reaching its full contraction, settles back down into position to level the suspension on the road. The car ends up moving less in space and the suspension regains its position faster. If the car were moving slower, gravity, momentum and the inefficient suspension would end up moving the car itself more which has a larger impact on the ride.
> Mezmo recently put in production Quickwit to serve thousands of customers and petabytes of logs, drastically reducing infrastructure cost and complexity while delivering the same user experience.
I can't imagine they feel great about Quickwit getting bought by a competitor after that.
Either they did it on their own, in which case that's open source for you, or they have some kind of contract with quickwit, in which case I'd be really surprised if they don't have some clauses which handle this.
