With the last 12 mos of explosive wildfires, California may be on the verge of a major climate change-induced migration crisis as property becomes less insurable on the wildland-urban interface, and this is what we're arguing about on flatland near a major, public transit station
Berkeley commissioner opposes 57-unit apt building on major transit corridor: "I see several single-family homes I think are going to lose their value.” The project would add $1million to the city's affordable housing fund, @kimmaicutler, @SonjaTraussgoo.gl/3ziBZ1
I think (without thinking too hard) I'd be fine with a within-grid exclusions model, i.e., an exclusion created by one grid item (and its shape) excluding space from line boxes in the normal flow of other items of the same grid.
There it's "always overlap" rather than "sometimes overlap as a function of lots of variables", right? (Or did I miss something?) So it's much more clearly an intentional choice to overlap.
A collision handling model could involve defaults (like floats), or it could involve a way to specify the collision handling behavior in some way.
But overlap by default is not a good behavior.
Floats have this, but absolute positioning doesn't.
And I think it's particularly bad in paginated contexts, which is where most of the demos of exclusions focused.
I think that in order for an exclusions model to be responsive, the rules for placement of the exclusions need to have a collision handling model, so that the way you place exclusions involves rules for how to move the exclusion if you put two in the same place.
For what it's worth, my basic argument against the current exclusions proposal is that they promote the opposite of responsive design: design that's fragile and breaks in response to slight changes in viewport size, fonts, or other variables.
If you count Houdini Task Force face-to-face meetings too then the face-to-face number is higher. It was also higher back when we had 4 face-to-face meetings a year (11 days rather than 8).
teleconference-only versus teleconference and face-to-face is a big difference. In a typical year @csswg probably has about 40 hours of teleconference and 56 hours of face-to-face.
(I'm assuming 45 telecons/year at just under an hour each, and 8 days × 7 hours/day f2f.)
If I had one constitutional amendment, I'd rather replace the House, Senate, and President with a parliamentary system elected in a mixed-member proportional system, probably unicameral (but maybe with a mostly-irrelevant upper house).
At least your fellow passengers haven't gotten to the point of wondering whether their luck would improve by not having somebody called @slightlylate on the plane.
“Remarkably Enrico Moretti (2013) estimates that 25% of the increase in the college wage premium between 1980 and 2000 was absorbed by higher housing costs.”
And the last sentence of @ATabarrok post:
“Housing is eating the world.”
marginalrevolution.com/margi…
"Young people can't accumulate wealth because houses are too expensive" is a fundamentally broken idea.
If houses were cheaper and young people bought them, they would only accumulate wealth if prices then rose so that future young people would be unable to buy them.
I've seen white tops on the peaks between Palo Alto and the ocean once (Mozilla folks were in town for it too... it was the time we had a room at Stanford) and on the east bay hills visible from Palo Alto/Mountain View multiple times. Usually melts same day, though.