ryan_lane

From what I can tell it's a just a house fan. The house ventilation doesn't do heating, cooling, etc. It just moves air.

Just wait till you find out how many commits per day to a product are occurring to most of the SaaS you rely on.

Clickhouse has a managed SaaS and it's their primary product. They have a lot of engineers. They're going to do a lot of commits.

These rooms have ventilation (and also usually a heater, cooling, dry mode). The ventilation can be set to 24/7 mode, which runs at a low setting, always on. Japanese houses/apartments also typically have a house ventilation system, meant to run when it's humid. Mold in general is a problem here, so ventilation is incorporated well.

It's fun in the winter when you're running humidifiers but forget to turn off your house ventilation and don't understand why you're still so dry.

> Democrats have historically been the party of “vote for me for more free stuff,"

Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Republicans, consistently, for decades. You're perpetuating a myth, pushed by conservatives, that liberals are "tax and spend".

> these vote buying schemes from both parties

Where do you see vote buying schemes from the Democrat side? The only examples I've seen so far of this in reality are this current scheme, and Elon Musk's scheme last election.

"Both sides" are not equal. Republicans have given up on the rule of law and are actively aiming to eliminate democracy.

People in shoes off houses tend to have slippers or house shoes, which never go outside. They also tend to have bathroom slippers, which are only ever used in the toilet areas.

I've lived in both shoes on and shoes off households and I'm sorry, but shoes are filthy. I wipe my dogs paws when they comes in from walks and their paws are filthy and I wipe them every single time they come back in from walks. Shoes are never wiped.

Take a second, get a tissue, and go wipe the bottom of your shoe.

IE's monopoly was replaced by Chrome and Safari's, and Safari only exists because Apple gives you no choice but to use it on iOS. Firefox had a brief spot on top, but it really didn't last that long.

Windows still has the vast majority share of desktop.

If a land value tax would fix rich people from parking money in real estate, it would price regular people out of real estate.

I know LVT is the libertarian dream, but in practice it means only the rich can own real estate long-term, in most cities. It also means the rich can drive out the poor by driving up land values around them, to the point where the taxes are too much to afford.

LVT simply wouldn't be a good system, if applied in the real world.

When health insurance companies withhold care and cause the death of hundreds of thousands of people, that certainly ripples out.

When profits of insurance are more important than people being able to get care, that directly leads to the situations that lead to violence. Poor, desperate people commit crimes, especially violent ones at a higher rate.

This simply isn't true, or you'd see these places accept credit cards.

The most prevalent mom & pop approach is either cash only or it's cash and PayPay. You may also see cash, PayPay and IC. PayPay, at first, had extremely low fees and an army of sales people that targeted mom & pops, pushing the low fees. They've since then increased fees as their saturation has increased, and now you'll see shops adding things like setapay or hachipay (which are annoyingly ku specific payment methods that are very low fee).

Larger businesses are owned by massive conglomerates, or are housed in shopping complexes owned by massive conglomerates that require them to accept more payment methods.

Like all businesses, they aim to reduce their costs and increase their margins. They aren't adding payment methods to reduce your inconvenience, unless they think doing so will increase their volume enough to offset the fees.

It's probably Elon Musk.

If my net worth were that high? No.

Folks need to remember that we're closer to being homeless than we are to being as rich as them. You don't need to defend billionaires.

A lot of range hoods in the US vent back into the house, surprisingly, especially if it's an apartment. IMO it should be code to have them vent outside.

> Can't set the temperature of the pan

My gas stovetop in japan has a temperature sensor, and can detect excess temperature (food or oil burning), maintain a temperature, etc. It's possible with gas.

That said, I miss my induction stovetop, and I'm building a house, and it'll have induction, rather than gas.

As a side project, I've been working on a RAG/MCP/agent service with workflows, for security: https://mappedsky.com/seizu/

This primarily builds on top of cartography (https://docs.cartography.dev/), which I'm a contributor to, which pulls infrastructure, SaaS, etc info into a Neo4j database, makes edges, and has a standardize ontology, so you can do attack path analysis, vulnerability assessment, inventory, etc.

Seizu uses the RAG built by cartography, and adds reporting, graph exploration, automations and more on-top of it. It currently ships with a couple pre-made automations:

* Automatic dependency vulnerability fixes, like dependabot, but uses codex/claude/opencode in a sandbox to do so, which ensures it doesn't just bump a version in the file, but actually assesses whether the changes in dependencies need code updates, and gives you a thorough overview on if changes aren't needed, and why changes were needed if so. If tests break, it also watches and fixes them automatically. * A workflow to run the cartography sync, making it possible to split apart the stages, run portions of the sync on different schedules, in parallel, etc, while also making it possible to properly trigger downstream syncs, or other types of workflows. * Generic AI agent workflow, which can be staged, run in parallel, or chained together via inputs/outputs, using Seizu's own custom agent (which has good LLM provider support, sandbox support with files, etc)

Workflows are built on-top of temporal, allowing it to be quite flexible.

Still affordable to locals. The yen has devalued, and the cost of mansions (condos) have gone up, but single family homes, small apartments, etc are still similarly priced to buy, and rent is generally stable. A major difference is that if you are OK with a tiny apartment, you can get one, and it'll be something you can pay.

You can definitely see affects of the poor economy lately (lots of pawn shops popping up, replacing expensive cafes/restaurants), but housing is still reasonable for now.

This article is specifically about its most livable cities. Why would you expect them to discuss the cities people don't want to live in? Every country has plenty of these. The point is to show the things that make a place livable, not to show all the ways a place isn't.

If you can't charge at home it's probably because you're in an apartment, which means you're in a city, in which case there's going to be charging infrastructure.

Causal link: https://www.apdaparkinson.org/article/golf-course-concerns-n...

It would be interesting to map this to parkinson's data.

I'm astonished that anyone is astonished by this amount of dead code in any large code-base. That's like 10 somewhat normal sized PRs worth of code.

Higher sale price homes rarely use standard rates. Funny enough, you can pretty easily see this even on shows like selling sunset, when they show you the sales price and the potential commission. There's also points in the show where they explicitly discuss rates and points at which they negotiate it.

It's also super common to negotiate a rate with an agent if you're buying a new house and selling your old one, by offering to let them be agent for both.

Federally, it is illegal to set a rate with clients. By law, rates must be negotiable. There's no regulation around sharing commissions between real estate agents, so maybe this is where you're getting confused?

There is no legal maximum for the percentage real estate agents can take, in the US. Rates are also not fixed, by law, and are required to be negotiable. There's a general standard for rates (typically 5-6%, split between agents/brokers), but there's nothing stopping them from setting it to 99%, other than the fact that people won't pay it.

Source: was a licensed real estate agent for a long time.

We're talking about cities that would benefit from congestion pricing. If there's enough traffic to need congestion pricing, then it could immediately benefit from public transit.

I don't understand why folks always take this as an all or nothing thing. We don't need to redesign the suburbs. They're the ones causing the congestion, and they're also the ones benefiting from free roads. Taxing them to cover the their own externalities makes sense. If public transit is available and better than driving cars, the suburbs will either support them via redesign, or they'll pay the tax for the luxury of driving a car into a city they don't live in.

> In my city public transit fares only cover something like 10% of the cost. Isn’t that fairly typical?

Sure, but the budget for transit is also extremely tight, especially compared to car infrastructure.

If only 10% of the costs are covered, that's even more motivation to not charge fees at all, right? Why impose that burden? More people riding public transit means less cars on the road, and less traffic, which is good for everyone.

> charges a fuel tax to pay for roads

For the most part fuel taxes haven't increased to cover the costs of roads (it hasn't increased with inflation at all, federally), and they typically cover highways. Recently, a number of places have been looking at pausing or removing fuel taxes to reduce costs of fuel, due to the Iran war. Most states cover the cost of roads primarily through their general funds.

Take the revenue generated from congestion pricing, and put it into public transportation. Make public transportation free to use. That would be far more impactful to the folks least able to bear an increase in driving fees.

In most of the US, people are forced to own cars because they don't have public transit available, or the available public transit is too infrequent, or there aren't dense enough routes. The reason behind this is funding.

Additionally, buses are less efficient because they need to sit in the same traffic as everyone else. Reduced traffic makes buses more efficient. Reducing car traffic is a win for basically everyone, and increasing public transit is additionally a win for basically everyone.

Car infrastructure is heavily subsidized, and congestion pricing is one way to make car owners pay for part of the cost. Why is it fair for public transit riders to have to pay per ride, when car owners get to use the infrastructure for free?

> no longer need to worry about heating due to climate change

I'm nearly positive that was sarcasm.

> Deaths from all natural disasters have dramatically decreased over the last century.

Because of our ability to predict them, and due to advances in scientific knowledge that allows us to more safely handle them. It's not because they've become less deadly. They're also becoming more frequent, and deaths alone isn't their only problem. They also drive loss of shelter, migrations, economic damage, etc.

> you claim my comment is propaganda when I cite a scientific source

Yes, plenty of science is propaganda. The study you cited wasn't propaganda, but the way in which you used it was, because it's not applicable to the way you're using it.

Direct exposure to ambient heat is only one of the many issues related to climate change, and one of the least deadly. As I pointed out, the study didn't include wet bulb events, so even direct heat exposure wasn't properly covered in the study in terms of climate change.

This study doesn't factor in droughts, floods, crop death (and starvation), and other non-direct effects. It also doesn't consider wet-bulb events, because it's looking at average ambient temperatures.

I don't think this is climate change propaganda, but your application of this study by evoking it in a discussion about climate change feels like it.

I think it's the parent that's confusing this:

> I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.

They're saying that main stream media sources are what can be used to define something is notable or not. The question isn't "Is the Daily Stormer" notable (it is), it's should the daily stormer be usable as a source to determine if something is notable or not (it shouldn't be, obviously).