New York’s rent control works differently from the Bay Area’s. It’s absolutely worth it to just raise the rent on a Bay Area unit if it’s rent controlled even if that means it runs empty. That isn’t usually the case in New York.
I think that every person or company in group 1 thinks they are in group 2 because they see ‘speed’ in ‘completing work’ as a signal in better performance. Especially since VCs are pushing for speed (https://x.com/Alfred_Lin/article/2084636778791858256), a lot of misguided person and company who is moving fast thinks they are in group 2, when the speed they have only doubles them down group 1
I don't think that's true. Prop 13 for example is priced into the market. Buyers bid higher because their taxes are frozen. This doesn't take decades to correct.
Market reactions are instant. Once the policy is fixed we don't have to wait for a generation
I feel for you and I'm similar too. However, there's a fine line between what you are describing and "perfect is the enemy of the good". I've seen some who claim to be like you but in practice they are a net negative to everything because they can never agree to anything until it is perfect even when the perfect solution is beyond the capabilities and/or out of project scope/budget and/or take too long to implement ignoring business needs.
With the difference that the larger the cities, the less we know the people around us and socialize with them. Totally different if you live in a tribe of 200 people or a mega city with 20 million people around you.
> plan with a stronger and more expensive model, and then use a cheaper model to do the "grunt work
Doesn't this sound like the model that led to bloated poor software produced by code monkey sweatshops where an architect fobbed off implementation work to grunts?
It always brings me back to the anecdote that QQ had 6000+ devs and WeChat was built by a tiny core of elite engineers (by imitating WhatsApp)
By definition, paying employees well means paying them above-market, not market rate. If you pay people market-rate, nobody writes home about the compensation. Market-rate is also not "underpaying" i.e. below-market.
Paying above-market rates is walking a tightrope. On the one hand, experienced employees who are well-versed in your systems and your organization are indeed worth more than market-rate (i.e. someone new), and compensating them as such will retain them. On the other hand, it also retains poor performers, who you want to steer to finding roles elsewhere. Being ruthless about firing fast is one option, but it's a deal with the devil - it erodes psychological safety among people who stay unless the firing is unanimously desired and there is a consensus among everyone who remains that it was necessary. So if you handle the firing wrong, you affect performance and social cohesion everywhere. If you pay market-rate, it's easier to just make someone miserable until they self-select out and find work elsewhere.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?), all successful startups pay above-market because equity compensation in the right company can be a life-changing amount of money. So most successful startups seem to successfully walk that tightrope.
Some developers treat their software like a baby when they test it or show it to others. Tapping cleanly and slowly, giving animations time to finish, scrolling slow and smooth, etc.
I like to beat the shit out of my software when testing. Constant erratic scrolling and zooming, multi-touch shenanigans, pressing multiple buttons as fast as I can, using back gestures and the browser back button (if it's a web app), changing the window size and orientation frantically, and just all kinds of rough usage.
If your software can't cope with these things then you're doing a disservice to your users.
I usually agree with this sentiment. I have a general disdain for elaborations and novelization. Get to the point! Give me the necessary facts and make it concise!
In this case for some reason, I disagree. This post is engaging for me. I sometimes elaborate on how I came to a conclusion because that journey is equally as fascinating as the conclusion itself. While reading this authors post I was happy to see what seems like a very thorough thought process.
It was actually refreshing for me to see someone write at such length and find myself engaged.
It worked for me.
Now, putting my self in your shoes, as I have regularly had the same opinion, I have more empathy and understanding for how people consume and enjoy writing.
So outdated that this week Apple used it as a benchmark of the M6 Mac mini: "Spreadsheet calculations in Microsoft Excel are up to 2.3 times faster than on an M1-based Mac mini"
Dan isn't necessarily Bertrand Russell so ill give him a pass for not using the perfect word in every place.
But this article is in my opinion one of the best attempts at explaining a fundamental problem in software product work that has never (in my experience) been laid out this well. I will implore you to finish it.
You might prefer to have the vacancy filled faster rather than waiting for the highest possible price. These algorithmic pricing cases kind of revolve around this concept.
It is the value that the service provided the companies.
Landlord input a desired vacancy rate or time on Market, and service suggests the right price.
Yes, let's look at "Asia" (as if that's some meaningful grouping in this context when the countries are so different culturally, geographically, and economically).
Since 2005, a huge amount of US manufacturing and resource processing (both large emitters) have been outsourced (largely to Asia, and more specifically China). Our economy doesn't function without these imported emissions, yet they don't count as "US emissions". Even excluding these emissions, the US makes up 4% of the world population and emits 13% of world emissions. Asia makes up 60% of the world's population and emits 52% (more than 3x less per-capita than the US). If you actually consider that the countries in Asia are vastly diverse, you'll find the large majority of these emissions are from China (from said manufacturing and resource processing), and India for example emits far less than its share of the population.
This also completely ignores that the effects of warming are from cumulative emissions (not just point-in-time emissions) because CO2 doesn't just disappear every year. As a share of historical emissions, Europe comes off far worse than Asia per capita, and the US even worse than Europe.
Even despite this, at least China (and the rest of Asia to a lesser extent) is investing in clean energy. China produces > 80% of the world's solar panels and > 70% of the world's lithium batteries. Meanwhile, in the US the administration is doubling down on subsidies for fossil fuels and issuing stop-work orders on renewable energy projects already under construction.
And because I know I have to give this disclaimer these days: I am no apologist for everything else wrong with China and their authoritarian government. But I can't bear this attitude of absolving ourselves of blame for climate change because some other continent has a bigger number than us.
Just 5 days ago the news was https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62m4gpnp78o. Different wording, few measurements later, this will run that way til December at the very least. We can shout another bird most days till there, or discuss the projections to the peak of the event (and how they usually correcting it upwards), that may give a better warning.
> Australia is the best case scenario for solar power.
Yes. (and no - it's a big country)
The USofA is also a large country with the same land area (mainland USofA at least) and many places suitable for solar and wind.
The South Australian capital, Adelaide, is on the 35th parallel (South), what works there likely works in the US at or below the 35th parallel North.
The essential point is that nuclear isn't a flat parameter free answer to all that ails - some places it makes no economic sense, other places it makes good economic sense ... and there's a world in between.
We have something similar where I live - no glaciers involved though, just river rocks.
The river dries up rapidly in the summer, leaving the smooth exposed bedrock riverbed peppered with rounded river rocks covered with drying algae.
Where the river is partially shaded, the rocks rapidly grow moss and other vegetation on their top surface. They preserve what little precipitation there is, and catch the morning dew. They grow top heavy, and fall over. They then repeat this on the next upwards facing surface. Meanwhile the downwards facing surface dries out from the radiant heat from the bedrock and shrivels into a thin black layer of desiccated biomass, which then partially falls off at the next rotation, further increasing the top-heaviness.
Over the course of a summer, the rocks all collect themselves into the local low-points of the river bed.
