teacup50

21 ms·

151.
by teacup50 11y ago
That is ... remarkably classist of you.
152.
by teacup50 11y ago
Cities really, truly, do not have a monopoly on the production of those things.
153.
by teacup50 11y ago
Boston's average population density is 13.3k/sq mi. San Francisco's average population density is 18.5k/sq mi. SF has been developed beyond Boston levels, and it's still not enough.
154.
by teacup50 11y ago
You can't really make the comparison being made in #1 without a lot of assumptions that just don't actually hold water in the market. Seattle has a population of 652k, with an average density of 8k/sq mi. San Francisco has a
155.
by teacup50 11y ago
Much cheaper, and much less useful. For "BRT" to rival trains, you have to set up a degree of dedicated infrastructure that costs nearly as much as trains. BRT sucks, and study after study after study shows that people do not wan
156.
by teacup50 11y ago
No, programming process is not different. I'm very aware of what DVCS is. It doesn't require breaking our collaborative processes just because changes are staged locally first.
157.
by teacup50 11y ago
Manhattan is only cheaper than SF because SF's market has been driven completely insane by local industry. Manhattan is still wildly expensive.
158.
by teacup50 11y ago
You're using a very unusual definition of "relatively cheap".
159.
by teacup50 11y ago
I've never seen a single example of this idea working. I've seen this idea lead to higher rents, with fewer people owning and more people renting. I've seen it lead to developer hand-outs in the name of tax incentives, zoni
160.
by teacup50 11y ago
Building more doesn't devalue their land. It actually increases the value simply due to the fact that there's more revenue to be made on the same amount of land. It also doesn't solve the housing crunch, because there's
161.
by teacup50 11y ago
Until when? Manhattan density? They still have this problem. Do we not stop until until we've turned entire cities into Mega-City One?
162.
by teacup50 11y ago
What you're missing is that "gotchas in the code" are not always known when the code is being written. Very often, you have to piece together what happened and why from the record of what people actually did. There's no
163.
by teacup50 11y ago
It's rare that the contemporary author knows what will be useful context in two decades.
164.
by teacup50 11y ago
Have you tried making sense of a project 10 years old? 20? 40? I can "experientially" state that squash throws away very necessary information for anyone trying to make sense of old code.
165.
by teacup50 11y ago
Many of us believe there's no such thing as a throw-away "WIP" commit, and if there is, the work should be better broken up and managed by the developer so that they're committing fully considered incremental progress.
166.
by teacup50 11y ago
As someone who has spent a lot of time tracking down the origin of source code changes -- and the reasons for them, and the implications of the change -- by reviewing commit logs, I can think of little worse, short of no commit history at a
167.
by teacup50 11y ago
It's inherently deceptive. Instead of thinking through problems to produce their solutions in an ordered, clear fashion, they make a big spaghetti mess, and then hide the sausage-making in a squashed commit that throws away work that m
168.
by teacup50 11y ago
They would if the safe was purely digital, based on vendor-controlled platform DRM that granted the vendor and only the vendor additional access to the safe.
169.
by teacup50 11y ago
The precedent of "search warrants" already existed. They weren't creating it.
170.
by teacup50 11y ago
You're seriously distorting the truth here, not the FBI. The FBI said Apple could maintain control over any tools they made. Apple said "oh noes, we can't ever make a master key [but don't look behind the curtain, where
171.
by teacup50 11y ago
FreeBSD's linux compatibility layer does exactly this; it reports as "Linux", there's a linprocfs implementation that provides a Linux /proc, etc. It's a lot easier to emulate syscalls than it is to do somethin
172.
by teacup50 11y ago
If you require more CPU cycles to do it, then it's not indistinguishable, even if it actually winds up being visually indistinguishable. It drains more battery, it leaves less CPU for other operations, etc.
173.
by teacup50 11y ago
Apple probably should have considered their own fallibility and the value of a working relationship with the FBI before launching a scorched-earth PR campaign. If the FBI could rely on Apple to provide assistance when presented with a court
174.
by teacup50 11y ago
This also requires a pretty extreme degree of a priori self-censorship just to be safe: "Making jokes within earshot of someone you know (or even think) is upset by them is a violation of consent"
175.
by teacup50 11y ago
Anyone thinking about attending moonconf should take a quick look at their Code of Conduct: No one at any events associated with Maitria, may speak to, touch, stare at, follow, or otherwise engage someone without their consent. Making joke
176.
by teacup50 11y ago
Yes. The same week that the fourth amendment -- which is what provides us with strong protection against unreasonable search and seizure -- was approved by Congress. Or do you refer to that as a stale 200 year old law, too?
177.
by teacup50 11y ago
The law in question was passed the same week that congress submitted the fourth amendment. Please stop parroting "200 year old law".
178.
by teacup50 11y ago
I believe it's an option far more often than people believe. Customers do follow dependability and lasting value; nobody trying to their solve day-to-day problems actually wants a treadmill.
179.
by teacup50 11y ago
I'm actually very happy to work somewhere that believes in "Move slow and don't break things". I believe that churn isn't progress, things with lasting value generally take time, and some problems can't be so
180.
by teacup50 11y ago
Not suppressive? I won't even discuss this subject non-anonymously due to the risk of the mob setting on me by association, not because I agree with Yarvin, but because I disagree strenuously with their use of intimidation to suppres

More ›