sagarm

They could choose a different lifestyle, but they value the one they have. That's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to subsidize their preferences.

Owner-occupiers can and do refinance to turn their wealth into cash. It's routine.

People refinance all the time.

"Forced out" meaning they choose to sell rather than spend their unearned windfall.

They could always borrow against their massively appreciated property, after all.

It'll make it so new construction tends to be condos rather than apartments, since the first is heavily preferred by tax policy. This reduction in supply will mean higher rents.

All that to say you agree with the GP: homeowners, as a class, are wealthier than renters. How owner occupiers choose to spend their wealth has nothing to do with the fact they have it.

It really is unreadable. I guess you're supposed to skim an AI summary. Too bad you'd never see the visualizations that way.

It's hard to tell if someone's oblivious or engaging in bad faith these days.

They don't need to build anything at all. Just leave the lot unoccupied and uncared for, and it'll turn into blight. The city will reward them for this by reducing their property taxes.

Upzoning increases property values, because the increased flexibility for development makes the land more valuable.

> transitioning to low emission quiet fuel cells

Does this technology even exist? The lies are getting more brazen.

If by "good reason" you mean avoiding any perceived slight to drivers, you've accurately described the current state.

You clearly don't have a partner that refuses to plug in the car. Sigh.

Those public chargers are likely to see much higher utilization than in-home ones. If your concern is wasted energy, time an individual vehicle spends charging seems like the wrong metric.

Construction labor is already expensive in California. We don't need make work construction projects.

I notice there's no surface area in your calculations. Solar panels alone, without labor or infrastructure, cost $5/sqft. What percentage of exposed canals would be covered at what cost?

People are determined to waste our public capacity on projects that make no economic sense. Is it any wonder the electorate doesn't have any faith that government will spend effectively?

Why would I do that? It's the job of the person sending me the PR to explain what they're trying to do. I'm done wading through AI slop.

This will result in an erosion of the effectiveness of US sanctions.

It's fair to note that only some percentage of the costs went to the panels and associated infrastructure, but a research grade weather station costs like $1k. I'm sure the prototype instrument for evaporation cost more; let's say $1M. That still leaves $19M for everything else. Frankly I have a hard time believing the other stuff was anything more than a rounding error.

As for the benefits: $/w already includes the electricity generated. California loses 1-2% of water in canals to evaporation; I think we can safely assume the economic value of preventing evaporation will be negligible when bare panels cost over $5/sq ft.

I look forward to seeing the author's economic analysis in the full report. However, the fact that these were the only numbers in this fluff piece suggests the economics won't be great.

Yes yes we know, Fitt's law.

Hot corners suck. They either activate too easily or they feel slow.

$20M for 1.7MW of capacity. Over $10 per watt. Recent utility scale installations in California are more like $1/W.

There'd be some cost reduction from scaling up, but 10x is a huge gap to close. This is a waste of money.

Yeah, Apple's OS is clearly not designed for keyboard/mouse users. Triggering this on a standard keyboard requires using both hands (Ctrl-up arrow) and then switching to the mouse. Super annoying.

On Gnome, super let's you search for application launchers or click on windows immediately; works great for both.

I can't believe this has to be said, but glass skyscrapers predate even the first iPhone.

The is hopefully the high watermark of Apple fans thinking Apple invented something they didn't.

Sounds like you'd prefer just setting a single safe speed of 30?

The "when needed" suggests that there are plenty of difficulty to cross intersections, you're just able to avoid them. Is that accurate?

In California you can post a surety bond in lieu of insurance. I'm sure the same applies in other states with governance that is not captured by corporate interests.

The current court has made it clear "civic lore" is fundamental to interpreting the Constitution, though curiously this seems to only apply to certain causes.

The US version: kill the national flood insurance program so we stop subsidizing property owners in disaster prone areas.

Government is the means by which the electorate acts collectively. Pushing for policy changes is not giving up.

People need cars because we designed our environments to require them. It was a choice, not an inevitability.

The two party system is the game theoretic result of first past the post. No amount of wishing will change that.