Engineer on @googlechrome. Involved in CSS and W3C standards. Previously @mozilla, @w3ctag. Mastodon: @dbaron@w3c.social
Rockville, Maryland, USA
Joined March 2008
- Tweets 7,521
- Following 1,244
- Followers 4,296
- Likes 18,519
So this is basically telling developers building in Palo Alto (if there are any... given how hard it is to build) that they should build buildings focusing (on average) on 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom apartments.
1
Before the changes, a maxed-out (on unit density and FAR) development in RM-40 would have 1089 ft² of floor area per unit, in RM-30 871 ft², and in RM-15 1307 ft². With the change, RM-20 has 1089 ft². Note that this floor area includes circulation and common areas.
1
The zoning changes currently before city council change one of the multifamily residential zones (RM-15) by increasing unit density from 15 to 20 units per acre (and rename it to RM-20), without changing FAR at all. This means none of the RM zones would encourage large units.
1
This is a key piece within an important thread.
I worry about suburban Bay Area cities that regulate development via unit density limits and floor area ratio (FAR) limits, like Palo Alto. In Palo Alto, FAR is often the most constraining; developers generally max it out.
This tweet is unavailable
1
1
1
It doesn't need that dramatic a rewrite. The old code was designed to be the scheduler for the entire system... since back in Netscape 1, before Javascript, that made sense... but by 1999 it was messing up the design of the whole browser, as I understood it.
1
4
We're really close to halfway from Y2K to the overflow of 32-bit time_t, but not *quite* there yet:
$ TZ=UTC date --date=@$((($(date +%s --date="2000-01-01 00:00 UTC") + $((0x7fffffff))) / 2))
Thu Jan 10 01:37:03 UTC 2019
(I'm choosing to use Y2K in UTC.)
This tweet is unavailable
4
18
Not just for the citizens but also the politicians who write the tax laws... like, say, the ones who wrote SF's real estate transfer tax.
1
Yikes... is there a distinction between cheaper things grown in the island and expensive ones that need to be imported? (Is the island a net importer of food?)
Then again, housing cost sounds like an even bigger issue...
1
1
And although it's not related to your question, maybe also see the anomalistic year:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year#S…
1
It's not quite the same place... the sidereal year and the tropical year differ by just over 20 minutes, leading to the answer to that question going in a circle every 25,772 years. See:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidere…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_…
1
3
Yeah, though I think it's more widely recognized that their age is an issue.
Biden would be 78 years, 2 months at inauguration 2021.
Sanders would be 79 years, 4 months.
1
While I like many things about Warren, I dislike that if elected, she would be the oldest president at first inauguration (71 years, 7 months), ahead of Trump (70 years, 7 months) and Reagan (69 years, 11 months). HRC would have been 69 years, 3 months, if she won in 2016.
Every person in America should be able to work hard, play by the same set of rules, & take care of themselves & the people they love. That’s what I’m fighting for, & that’s why I’m launching an exploratory committee for president. I need you with me: elizabethwarren.com
1
1
2
Happy New Year, New Zealand.
Hopefully today is one of the days where the rest of us don't leave you off of the world map.
10
I'd say:
fling/flinged/flung
wring/wrang/wrung
I wonder how many irregular verb differences there are between UK/US/CA/AU/NZ/ZA/etc...
1
I think we've rather moved away from that idea in the past 50-110 years with central bank Independence. Making the fiscal policy be the monetary policy tends to make bad monetary policy. So we built institutions that aim to keep them separate. Or something like that....
1
1
A 3% discount rate is sensible (low, even) if you're operating a business... less so (and far too high) if you're operating a civilization.
1
The choice of discount rate, mentioned briefly there, seems like a huge issue to me. 19january2017snapshot.epa.go… focuses on a 3% discount rate. Compounded over 100 years, that means harm 100 years in the future is valued at 4.8% of harm today.
Seems wrong for this area of policy.
1
1