fennecfoxen

> I don't buy the argument SROs were removed to get rid of Slums.

"Criticizing hotel life was one thing; effectively controlling it was another. By 1910, reformers had established the idea that hotel housing was a public nuisance. From 1900 through the 1940s, interlocking groups of reformers and landowners transformed objections about hotel life into practices to control living in hotels. For the goals of the culturally and socially reorganized new city to succeed, aberrant forms of housing had to be prevented and removed—slum and hotel alike. Yet gaining control was neither automatic nor preordained. Hotel housing was entrenched in some areas and in others, still expanding (fig. 8.1). A few handfuls of reformers had to do more than galvanize public opinion against the notion of living in hotels; they also had to establish whole new governmental organizations and procedures to give cities and states the necessary legal and bureaucratic power." https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49...

"As with the SFRA's applications of blight and nonbuilding, the actions of other hotel-closing agencies were not (in their own minds) aiming the wrecking ball at the homes of the poor but "eliminating dead tissue," "applying the scalpel," "clearing away the mistakes of the past," and building "an attractive new city." About a Norfolk, Virginia, hotel district, one planning journal editor reported in 1961 that "progress had reached the demolition stage." Local agents crowed that they had "reduced to rubble . . . scores of flophouses not renowned for adding luster to their city's good name."

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6j49...

I think you misunderstand the incentives. The elimination of the residential hotels and boarding houses of yesteryear (to be replaced with two-or-three bedroom apartments) was a deliberate exercise in class warfare, and the governments in question were largely delivering what voters wanted.

The remarkable part is the people who still defend the measures as for-the-poor's-own-good.

... It looks like this link died a short while after I posted it so have the non-holiday equivalent: https://www.sugarfina.com/design-your-own-9-piece-mini-candy...

> To get that full cache usage, you are still going to be using 32-bit integers wherever possible, but that means 3/4 of your pipeline goes to waste for most calculations.

I thought we were in an era of Dark Silicon where we are power/thermal constrained and it’s great to have lots of different special purpose parts of the die as long as you can turn them off when you’re not using them.

To have some accountability for people who are supposed to make tough decisions and resolve tradeoffs in some responsible way.

Notably this isn’t a direct democracy, where direct democrats have an unfortunate tendency to demand freedom from the consequences of the policies they themselves enact, and ask for the irreconcilable.

There’s definitely laws that say certain equipment had to “accept” interference from lawful transmissions. You’ll find a label to that effect on every piece of 802.11 and Bluetooth gear in the US, for starters.

“Immunity” is largely your own problem though.

I’m not arguing with the idea most of the signal gets to the ground, but, I’m worried that you get specifics quite wrong. Planes don’t want a reflection from 50% of the sphere. They want it from directly below. Other land is further from the plane and obscures the measurement.

But they’re not broadcasting to the whole sphere either, because the radar instrument is not an isotropic radiator. That antenna has gain. It’s louder / more sensitive in a specific direction. Probably by a lot. You can’t make perfect antennas, but you don’t need any signal at all from most of the sphere, so you can gain many decibels.

The angle of the beam you do have is probably fixed, and being fixed would imply that the area swept by the core of the beam is indeed proportional to the square of the altitude. But I don’t think two trips through an n^2 distance is n^4 unless I’m missing some of the physics. Shouldn’t it be (2n)^2 and this still proportional to the square of the altitude not to the hypercube? (And affected by scattering and bad reflectivity from the terrain, which seems likely to be independent of altitude?) This is different for detecting random entities in free space where most of the first n^2 trip really is lost.

So it’s like you say but for different reasons??!?!

It's not that scary.

https://www.sugarfina.com/valentines-day-mini-candy-trunk

"Catholic bishops fear Scotland's hate crime law could criminalize Bible and Catechism." I hope you will forgive me if I imagined that you could have guessed, with some reasonable degree of accuracy, from the presence of a URL which says 'catholic news agency dot com'.

i really like that this is flagged

Careful, now. Someone might take that sentiment as stirring up hatred against someone with a protected characteristic, like Christians and Muslims.

But, ah, for srsly, they're worried about that too https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/45331/catholic-bisho...

Of course it's bad. The question is what's worse: that, or an overbearing government that's in the business of thought control, telling people what they are and aren't allowed to say and think in their own homes.

I have my opinions on the matter, and it's clear that Scotland has other opinions: it neither has freedom of speech and of conscience, nor wants it, and neither, it seems, do you.

And if you are upset at this "caricature" of the law and its intent, maybe you should tell Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf, who proposed it, that he ought have shut up about its explicit intent. He has been abundantly clear that it must be enforced against all utterances in the home, not just a few extreme cases where some deranged madman happens to be inciting violence from his home. The Justice Secretary specifically identified that a child’s report to a teacher of what a parent said at home should be sufficient to prosecute.

[1] n.b. the purpose of that feature is to deauthenticate your own organization's computers if they try to connect to an access point that is not operated by your organization (e.g. if someone accidentally connects to the phishers operating m4riott-c0rp).

> If tech companies and nation states started enforcing/obeying laws based on the Nationality Principle, then FB/Google/AMZN and other data collecting firms would be allowed to ignore GDPR on the principal that the developers are in the US and thus they don't have to follow local laws.

The developers are in the US. They don't have to follow local laws anywhere else. This is a fundamental principle of international relations dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. This international order is a major reason why we can have nice things, like peace, instead of unending war.

It is, of course, possible for the nation to ban these entities from conducting business in their jurisdiction. If such entities preferred to stay out of Europe and lose that business, it would be further possible for the nation to ban its citizens from accessing Facebook and similar businesses via the Internet; the general pursuit of liability consequences which Europe has attached to the GDPR has produced a sort of soft-ban, as any European who has seen a notice from a US newspaper can attest. This is of course quite ugly, but typical GDPR-boosters sometimes seem to think that anyone who doesn't kowtow to the European order is fundamentally Evil and would like to distract you with this fact, while they seek stronger ways to protect their citizens from treacherous foreign newspapers.

We are able to maintain a stable global system with international trade in no small part because most jurisdictions don't try to do the same, legislating what foreign actors may and may not do in their own countries as a condition of their business. This system is eroding — the GDPR didn't actually start it, the US did — and it is likely to have many unfortunate consequences in years to come. Among other things, Europe is of the opinion that GDPR and its fines must be enforced in future trade agreements, but it is fundamentally incompatible with the US Constitution and its first amendment (the "Right to be Forgotten" in particular).

I am reminded of Fully Automated Luxury Gnosticism: https://unherd.com/2021/09/welcome-to-fully-automated-luxury...

I don’t think the sample rate is high enough to detect individual waves.

It’s not just that though. It’s also because a lot of people with $0 or subzero wealth have reasonable incomes, and a lot of people with a small but positive amount of wealth have very little income (China in particular). The overall well-being depends more on income including the imputed value of social services, not the stock of wealth.

Wealth comparisons generally are fraught even besides this. The most valuable asset of the average human, by far, is their human capital. These and social services and purchasing power parities can be measured and compared for a more meaningful result, and highlight the truly poor, but this piece isn’t it. It’s just agitprop.

I’m not sure the right people feel the same way about this. I recall that after the 2008ish bailouts many politicians felt they were entitled to own banks, even the ones who did not ask for and had repaid the money.

One other option you may have noticed, as key to the purpose this thread, is to work in North Carolina, and not in the Bay Area.

I'm quite curious: who counts as 'civilized' these days? Clearly not the UAE (we've just seen an article on Dubai debtors prisons on these pages) but it seems we'd need to take Japan off the list, for instance (see e.g. https://www.economist.com/asia/2015/12/03/silent-screams ) and if we have to take them off the list I'm not sure where we end up stopping

> To play devil's advocate: someone who is in NC (or a lower cost-of-living area), if they're paid the same as someone in the Bay Area, is effectively being paid more for doing the same work.

They're paid the same in fact, they just spend it poorly (on expensive Bay Area real estate, mostly, but also other services the area makes more expensive.) Why should Google help subsidize SF Bay Area real estate? Historically, the answer is just, "because so many employees are here and we like them here", but will that cut it going forward?

This would be contradicted by the fact that his argument makes splashy headlines and is engaged with regularly.

We totally can. But the moon is a lot further away.

> It is quite weird how we can't maintain something as basic as food security with a market based economy

We can't? Where's the famine? News to me. Last I checked we still have way more food than we know what to do with (massive worldwide fertilizer shortages and inflation notwithstanding).

* tenterhooks

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/on-tenterhooks...

"Public advocacy is for everyone, not only those able and willing to weather abuse. And donors have good reason to fear abuse." — Jeremy D. Tedesco

Your critique highlights how the US had a President lose an election, and how he tried to undo it.

However close he came to success (which we might dispute), he lost it in the first place, then be failed to hold on, and then he was removed. This leaves the US easily 1000x more free and more democratic than the USSR, which never ran an election without tampering with the vote in the first place, and which never saw its leaders democratically deposed. They succeeded in suppressing democracy much earlier in the process.

The rest of your comments suffer a parallel problem.

Housing is expensive because of a demand spike, as people are now consuming house-space where they used to consume office-space, school-space, and other public or communal spaces.

Any return to these spaces being open, especially any pullback from WFH, is likely to result in a reduction of this demand. The question is the extent to which this will happen, where it will happen, and whether it will be sudden. Something is certain to happen along these lines.

The other question is what happens if the Fed hikes interest rates and mortgages are much more expensive. Since most people still have mortgages and most mortgage owners are limited by a price-per-month expenditure, this could hurt demand as well too, and depress prices.

This is why you have a separate defense grid, and a capacitor farm to serve defense demand, and when the capacitors run low you have a logic network to read the value of `A` (accumulator fill %) and turn off everything that isn't critical (mining, etc). (Of course, you'll need this switch at any satellite installation too.)

You may need to shift-click some electric poles to disconnect them from other poles, and use copper wire to connect them exactly how you want.

Add a lowkey alarm buzzer (the speaker) to let you know this is going on. Try to have a second, louder one that detects whether it's failed and the factory is still on because of a short circuit. Conduct tests by wiring in a constant combinator outputting a fixed value of A (possibly negative).