More like 3X the area and 15X the population (Tokyo metropolis vs SF city and county) or 1.5X the area and 8X the population (Tokyo metropolitan area versus SF metro) -- all figures gleaned from Wikipedia.
I don't know if a 300sqft apartment is big or small because we use the metric system here, but if you're talking down small apartments, wouldn't the market partially sort that out? If an apartment is too small, people wouldn't buy or rent it. Or if they did, maybe it's all they could afford or a sacrifice they were willing to make?
I've read stories on HN of start-ups living or operating out of literal closets because they can't find or afford an alternative. Surely there's some size which is safe and liveable, but smaller than what is available now? And can be designed in a way that isn't a charmless, stifling box?
Well, the market is sorting things out right now isn't it? Rent is really high and there are long commutes. So how exactly does turning SV into a Tokyo solve this problem?
It doesn't. There are far more people who want to live in the Valley than there are homes and building homes won't solve that problem. If anything, they need to stop building so people are forced to relocate to other parts of the world. The insane concentration of technologists in one area is not good for the world.
Is it though? From afar, I thought the general criticism was that regulations were impairing development? Or is the NIMBY reaction from existing owners considered part of the market in a situation like this? (Honestly don't know.)
Bringing some Tokyo public transport wouldn't hurt, right? That would help with the commutes and make living further out viable.
Well you won't find any argument from me with respect to public transportation. It needs a massive improvement nationwide.
I just don't like the knee-jerk reaction from others (not you necessarily) who just call everything NIMBYism as if people who own property have 0 rights or concerns. I own and live in a small condo. Like under 100k in value. I have a cool little view of the city, nothing special. I bought it because of that and other factor. You're damn right I would be upset if somebody wanted to build a skyscraper blocking my view, it literally affects the quality of my life. Now, that certainly isn't justification in itself to block construction, but on the other end it very much seems as though, from the other end of the discussion, that my concerns would be deemed irrelevant.
How would you (not you specifically) if people started tearing down trees in your neighborhood to turn it into a strip mall so cars could get through? How bullshit is that?
Overall I just want to see a more balanced discussion, so I call out what I see.
I suspect yes, because Lotus Notes was briefly very fashionable for corporate communication, and apparently supported NNTP, according to this article (PC Magazine, 24 Feb 1998):
This is what I came here to post, and you can see that, in the mobile chart, Chrome and Safari already seem to be levelling off. Maybe a better model would be like an ADSR (attack decay sustain release) envelope in sound synthesis where the logistic curve represents the attack / initial adoption phase, possibly followed by a mirror logistic curve representing mature saturation then eventual replacement by competitors. That said, some products do come back from the dead, like Mozilla itself; the Apple Mac is another example.
Saying "Chrome won" now feels like saying "IE won" in 2002 or so. Look at the chart here:
What strikes me is the diversity. Chrome has mostly been stealing market share from IE; Safari is growing too and is by no means dead; FF has been declining, but not that much. There are 4-ish strong browsers in the market now when before there was only 1 (IE) and a half (Mozilla). Certainly a different picture from the chart in the article.
'Qc Na responded by hitting
Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's
object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened.'
"If you read through enough Zen koans, you’re quickly struck, as it were, by the number of those oblique lessons that end with a student getting slapped. It may be delivered by hand, stick, sandal or goat bite, but the slap, painful as it might be, is an act of compassion, a wordless reminder of the things we know but can never seem to remember or practice for very long."
The TV show NCIS borrows from this philosophy. Gibbs always smacks the back of his underling's heads when they do something stupid. But if he doesn't, they worry he has given up on them. They also made it a point saying that smacking the front of the head would be offensive.
Was anyone else reminded of John Harvey-Jones versus Morgan, where he bawled them out for pushing a car chassis up and down a hill several times as part of their production line?
That was my initial reaction, but if you look at section 2, both paragraphs could plausibly have been written by Stewart and/or Shapiro; all the images are authored by Stewart as the director.
If you can write something useful about the results or the things you discovered or developed in the process, sure. (Not in every venue of course, but in many)
I don't know enough about the specific subfields involved here to guess where and if this specific example would likely pass.
.svg){kind=link}
> which is arguably how most sane engineers would write it
I'm always wary of this sort of statement.