Once you assume the city is both building the fiber and providing services over the fiber, I'm not sure if also making it an OAN makes sense anymore?
24,708 karma · joined December 2, 2009
Once you assume the city is both building the fiber and providing services over the fiber, I'm not sure if also making it an OAN makes sense anymore?
The interesting thing here perhaps is that if you live above 37 degrees latitude, there are very few ways to get vitamin D, mainly fish and fortified foods.
Fortified foods are arguably not that different from supplements, and fish is pricey, unpopular, and somewhat of a specialty food.
So, perhaps there really is an argument for vitamin D supplementation. Although, at least for its cofactors, I'll be trying to get them from food.
Is this honest truth? Ever step on one of those body composition scales? I used to tell myself when I was super skinny that, hey, at least what I did have was muscle and I wasn't weak. But it was not true, there was very little muscle, and I was weak as hell. I was like 18% BF at a BMI of 17. It's one of those pernicious lies we tell ourselves that we want to believe because they make us feel better about ourselves.
Maybe the cost doesn't work out or something, but seriously, a fixed land power station seems like the ideal use for caps.
They're fundamentally DC, but so are batteries. I wonder if you could make yourself a massive LC tank, and bypass conversion losses...?
But, if the means of production (e.g. wind) is overall still a win and power only goes negative for short periods, if consumers can respond and sink that power more cheaply than the producer can dial back & protect the grid in the process, it might be the best solution for everyone.
Do you believe this is an honest characterization of their core goal? Is the opposition's number one goal simply to oppose multifamily property? Like, "God ordained that no two families should live in a single structure"? Or is it about property valuation changes, or building height, or street parking, or land use, or decreasing number of (semi-permanent) owners and increasing number of (temporary) renters, or...?
Right, I'm pretty sure I specifically acknowledged this in my previous comment.
why some feel because they have it already that they should be able to exclude others from having it in the future
If some hypothetical resource has a determinate carrying capacity and any greater usage degrades the resource for everyone, it's not unreasonable to exclude people. See the fixed number of backcountry permits Yosemite issues. Some things simply cannot be had by everyone. Given this, how do you decide who gets, and who does not get?
We really only have three systems that I know of- 1) lottery, ala Yosemite permits 2) free market, ala Bay Area low density housing, also ski condos 3) precedent/i-was-there-first, ala people who already own a house there get to stay there as it becomes desirable, also prescriptive easements of public trails on private land
1) That's really not a countrywide thing
2) It's not specifically the landlords, it's whoever was already there. A landlord who bought in just recently is not rolling in dough. The people who capture the gains are the people who got in fifty years ago and sold & moved, or the landlords who got in fifty years ago and are still renting the property.
3) But, yes, from the worker's perspective his salary increases will tend to go towards housing/land. This is a natural state in a competitive housing market. He must compete in the market for the space to live so that he can live near his job. The power of the market will continually optimize for those who make the most money (i.e. hypothetically produce the most economic value) to live in the most desirable housing (e.g. the closest to work)
In our case redevelopment for density actually helps preserve that character. But I still feel like I can understand the Bay Area home owners.
Then in the process of redeveloping, as more and more properties are redeveloped, the old character is lost to everybody- the people who lived there as well as the new people who moved there for that character!
It's not a new conundrum- what do you do about people moving to a community for it's desirable character, but killing that character in the process? It hurts everyone involved.
HN frequently likes to take the position that the parcel you bought is yours, but if your neighbor wants to bootstrap a red light district you just have to deal. But, all over the country we have HOA's and zoning and so forth. Turns out, people want to come together and live in a community. Nobody particularly likes living in a free-for-all, so mutual agreements were set up to ensure the neighborhood you bought into doesn't turn into something totally different overnight.
Besides, there's plenty of Y where they were sure it was going to work, it fit all the models and theories, it did the right thing in mice, and then in a trial Y fails catastrophically.
Pulling numbers out of the air, the argument is the chip was designed for maximum performance with a fresh battery, 100% performance. But later it's throttled to 80%. Or, Apple could have designed the chip for a steady 95% performance throughout the life of the phone.
According to some dentists I've talked to, this is a consequence of modern diet. Eat a lot of raw carrots and other basic foods, and you wouldn't really need to brush.