adjkant

> I'm not sure that's the right trade off here, especially when it comes to safety and environment.

Can you give some reasons why you think that?

Not my experience at all in the downtowns of NYC, Boston, Seattle, and SF. DTLA is a very unique downtown due to many factors specific to LA (mainly car culture taking away practical significance from the city center + the housing sprawl) and that doesn't generalize to most actual cities.

Some notes as what I would say is near target user who generally enjoys the time I spend on Tiktok:

1. Tiktok the company is absolute crap, mainly for censorship of content and diverse creators (they even recently they A/B tested censoring private messages between mutuals). This is absolutely tied to China, though the political CCP part is a lot of unfounded griping probably. But to be clear, Tiktok the user culture and the company are very different.

2. Tiktok has essentially become the new Tumblr. The algorithmic approach means that once you give some signals, the content specifies a lot and it can be a great experience for people interested in more niche things. The "default" Tiktok is incredibly bad, but spaces for queer creators, the neurodivergent, political discussion, and niche interests such as urban planning, book clubs, fandoms, movies, tv shows, art, and more are thriving. That's something that many don't see unless they are in those groups because of the algorithm, so no "cursory" look at Tiktok will find that.

3. To answer your questions, I have had my doom scroll days but generally I keep to an hour or so now and generally feel pretty good after using it. Again it depends on what "side" of Tiktok you are on, but it avoids a lot of pitfalls. I haven't seen studies, but here's one data point for you. I'm 25 for reference on age.

If you don't feel the need or desire, you don't need to be on it. But I really think the best way to conceptualize it is a visual Tumblr with an automatic algorithm approach rather than a focus on manual curation.

> it just isn't the place

I think you've fallen into trying to moderate the internet as a user here. The verbiage of this post just isn't that strong, as evident by the primary reply being far from alone

Given the OP is asking for opinions on said issue, this seems incredibly normal?

What would be the point of a thread where only people with an opinion/preference on one side post they all feel the same way? The point is to get a discussion and understand where everyone stands and why, at least it seems to me.

So I have a Google Sheet that basically does this and I tested this out and got some similar numbers as my sheet, so some things seem to be working well! This is also a great UI!

I was pretty impressed with the depth of detail as well, and one thing this seems to have better tooling for than my manual sheet is for tax treatment and long term tracking there

Two bugs/issues I found:

1. I couldn't tell if inflation was applied in future years at all. Despite selecting an increase in income and inflation matched expenses, neither seemed to be reflected when I selected the future year.

2. Setting 401K by percentage caused lots of issues as it allowed me to go over the IRS limit. I just wanted to set it by amount and be done with it! Would be good to have options to allocate savings like that as well as by percentage.

Honestly, this is really intriguing for me as I've covered a lot of these cases and as a developer I've thought about the UI/UX for this but basically have always thought that the edge cases were so vast that it would be hard to get users while also making sa reasonable UX. Truly, using this changed my mind and this seems like something that could be possible. I'm not sure what your team size is and I have limited time, but I'd be interested in talking and seeing if there's any way to contribute / help here! Feel free to contact me @gmail or via my bio's website contact form if you're at all interested in that!

Dupeish of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26964249

+1 to this in NY

While not intended, at Facebook's age and scale, I think gross negligence is a fair assessment. That said, it seems like upthread there's questions on the validity of the report methodology, so probably standby on any diagnosis here.

It's absolutely automated, but it begs the question, should it be allowed to be, particularly when dealing with minors? It seems crazy this case slipped through to exist when Facebook has been around for so long.

This is the real answer. The effects of UML will live on forever, but a formal language for it has been dead for a long time in common use, though some of course will still use the exact formality.

The value of UMLish things is just visually diagramming data and systems. Boxes with arrows and some data inside is typically enough to do the trick. Lucidchart is thriving despite many not actually writing explicit UML on it.

> The program, known as “Project Bernanke,”

Oof. You'd think people would learn by now that funny codenames for questionable projects never are a good idea...

I guess my question is why DFW given its flaws, for better or worse? Why not NYC or Boston or Chicago or LA or DC, to name a few?

There's an implicit assumption there that this problem will continue until it consumes most every small city, which I don't think is true. At a certain point, it will either stop at a larger/more popular city level or will spread itself so thin that the original set of cities becomes affordable again full circle. I suspect the first case as the cumulative growth rate of tech slows, but of course that guess is just as good as yours likely.

No argument here, but what does this have to do with the countless other neighborhoods in NYC and the consistent expansion of housing that has happened in them over the past few decades while other cities experienced far worse gentrification pressures by not building housing?

Hudson Yards is not what I'm referring to in any way in my posts on this article. I'm mainly talking large towers in Williamsburg, along Atlantic Ave in Brooklyn, in the East Village edge near Alphabet City, some in Gowanus, Long Island City, and many others I'm probably forgetting.

Odd answer, but go to the megacities that show resilience and are building housing. In the US, so far that may only be NYC. I know that's not amazing to hear if you have other reservations about NYC, but I think it's the reality until mid-sized cities catch on and get their shit together.

The other answer IMO is to pick a city no one in tech is even thinking about, and the growth rate is expected to be slow. Not to jynx them but places like Cleveland, Richmond VA, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Detroit, Columbus, San Antonio, Milwaulkee, etc.

Personally, I far prefer the megacity, but that second list is a potential option.

From an urban development perspective, to me it seems that the best course of action would be a massive federal investment in existing mid-sized cities. Build large public transit networks in some of these becoming desirable cities and distribute the strain tech is putting on our urban centers. Massively increase housing density, but with this foresight, avoid doing the short term luxury development that won't hold up longterm and build some old fashioned 3-5 story brownstones.

The risk is that the people never come, but the alternative is the consistent hollowing out of all major US cities. Something has to give.

I don't see where I say anything about those, you might be assuming things here. The whole point is to maintain many of those houses affordability and current residents. If done right, property taxes should not increase significantly, and the local government has the levers to ensure that if they make it a priority.

> Those luxury buildings are going exclusively into poor neighborhoods because they have the cheapest land and least restrictions.

That sounds like what the cities should precisely fix. Use zoning and legislation to herd these buildings into more desirable places. Real estate will still come and build. Many cities have done this before, this is very much possible.

If not private, then we get back to the idea of public housing being built. This is much more of a political longshot, but I think it would actually be quite interesting to see public housing at the top of the market. "Affordable housing" approaches are a bandaid on the issue. By the city building the luxury buildings themselves, they can select the exact places they want them instead of just generally herding.

100% in agreement on the nuance here. I used metro area above rather than city limits, and that will 100% not capture some of that neighborhood level migration away from the cultural center of the city. I think that's important to capture and wish the article did with more detail, but I think this point was meant to be an aside to a more qualitative story. I have no doubt the gentrification story of Austin has been covered in nuanced detail before this, so I hope people don't write off the article due to this.

> I don't think increasing housing density is the answer. We really don't need more luxury apartments or million dollar condos.

This was my first natural instinct maybe 5 years ago, but seeing the differences in gentrification stories has made it clear it's far worse to keep density the same. If nothing in the city changes and rich people decide they want to flock to your city (in this case, tech workers), it's a given that the existing poorer people will be forced out and prices will increase. Measures like rent control only slow the process, holding back a rising tide.

I've seen this personally in my backyard in Brooklyn. What has happened there is that massive luxury towers have been built along a busy street (central to transit but still not "neighborhoody"). While rents have still gone up, it seems this real estate and luxury market has helped stave off the insane hikes SF has seen, for example. Million dollar condos, probably not a good idea. But luxury buildings with high density turn into normal real estate in 20 years, and that top of the market ease keeps a lot of that tech money out of existing minority and poor neighborhoods.

The question for Austin if they accept that is where to put them. Finding a balanced place would be key here IMO.

At the general level, I doubt anyone is surprised to see this story, and there will likely be more to come as tech flocks to Austin (though it was already a notable tech hub with some of these pressures already before the billionaires decided to give it the seal of approval).

To me, the more interesting question here is how does Austin avoid what happened to SF, where tech hollowed out nearly all of its existing culture and then tech workers began to complain it was bland.

Real estate and zoning policy is going to be key here. I've seen a decent deal of discussion about "Yuppie Fishtanks" [0] recently and generally it seems to be supported that massively increasing the housing supply is one of the best ways to keep rents intact and avoid hollowing gentrification. For the existing Austin residents here, how is the city approaching it thusfar? Do people think this is another SF gentrification story in the making, or is something different?

[0] http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/yimbyism-explaine...

> I generally don't expect to see the politics of a random city in the U.S. here

This regularly happens on HN for SF, LA, NYC, Seattle, etc. Austin is pretty in line with those for the reasoning you suggested.

Good callout, but it's important not to fudge the numbers here. Using this source[0], it seems like the population doubled, not tripled, from 911K to 1.84M. If we use that 10% to 7.5% drop, the city's black residents went from 91K to 138k. Hardly tripled, in fact only a 50% increase compared to over 100% population size increase. So the comparative growth was half as fast. I'd still say thats notable to the article's cultural context, though it doesn't support the claim of people being forced out inherently.

None of these numbers will give information on who was forced out. You'll need migratory data for that.

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/22926/austin/population#:....

This is basically just Scribble (docs for Racket). If you have input, I'd venture to guess contributions are more than welcome!

https://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/

Speaking as a combined BS/MS grad who TA'd the first semester intro course for 6 semesters and had the pleasure of having one of the authors advise me on a senior project type thing, a big +1 to this.

I sometimes feel like I'm crazy when I tell people I wouldn't pick nearly anywhere else for undergrad CS, but time after time when I compare with peers on their experience, this model really is incredibly different and only a few others schools use it (the list is growing, but notable ones being Brown and Waterloo).

If anyone wants a high level overview of the approach, I can't recommend this essay enough: https://felleisen.org/matthias/Thoughts/Developing_Developer...

I can't tell if watching the switch from they to he pronouns in a post about bias awareness is making me side more with or against your point :)

Despite the title, this is very much more than fluff and would highly recommend reading it in full.

I'm not sure what scale would affect this that Google hasn't already hit? I've already had GSuite for my high school, my college, and my work. What additional scale would open up massive security holes? This seems like it's very much just horizontally scaling the same product.

Not to mention that GSuite already has 6M different customers/tenants. They're already at a comparable scale, and that doesn't mention that the free versions have the same application security model, with zero incidents (knock on wood). "but scale" feels like it's ignoring the already existing track record and scale and just making excuses for Microsoft.

It's not a guarantee but I'll trust Google for application security over Microsoft every time.

That said, it's not the question. The question is if a company wanted to switch away from Microsoft here, what is their option? It's not an inherent statement that one is actually better, but that there is an option if one feels burned by Microsoft here.

> Office software

GSuite seems like the answer here. Mail, Docs, Sheets, Slides will work for a vast majority of businesses.

I would not put Netflix in this category as there has been extensive coverage on how they try to get as much time spent as possible. Autoplaying content at the end of one show is a prime example, and how that time was optimized down to be incredibly short.

Short version: Subscription retention and time spent correlate, so they still have the "crack dealer" model incentives.