Yes. With 3 important caveats: 1) similar things have happened in the past and got overturned, because it's against the WA state constitution. A challenge has already been mounted and the income tax isn't even in effect yet. 2) There is a very very small number of Tech Employees this would actually affect as it's only a 2% of income tax on income over 250K for individual, and 500K for married couple. 3) It's only on Seattle proper, independent of where you work, so you could literately live one block outside of Seattle and not pay. Most people who make that much already do live outside Seattle in Medina or Bellevue.
It's really just a symbolic gesture, to appease the base of those in office, that will most likely be overturned.
Sure that's true. I take Vitamin D, and have a light that I use during the winter. However, it's really both the Spring and Summer that are beautiful IMO, which is half the year. I make sure to take my vacations during the other half. I also tend to get more work done during that half, since staying indoors is conducive toward it. But, per the article I posted: it's not a couple bucks, on average - you end up after paying your rent, and taxes - having double the money left over living in Seattle over San Francisco. And it will probably only move more in Seattle's favor, as Seattle keeps on building: http://www.spur.org/news/2017-06-15/keep-building-oakland. Vitamin D pills are cheap. Living in San Francisco is not.
Depends on what viewpoint your coming from, but from that of a software developer there are many alternatives that have been much better than San Francisco for years, especially Seattle https://www.codementor.io/blog/best-cities-software-engineer..., which is also set up for future success as it keeps building http://www.spur.org/news/2017-06-15/keep-building-oakland. Honestly, I think what we are seeing, is a shift from technology companies, to technology simply being in everything, reducing the usage of such an odd concept as "Silicon Valley". For example: the biggest "Technology" company recently in Seattle is Amazon, a store first - that leverages technoloy. Even the recent things coming out of Silicon Valley have been similar (uber - taxi company that uses technology for efficient trip planning with customers, all the food delivery startups, etc). As we move more and more in this direction, where the startups are X (with technology!) it makes sense for the product to be developed where X is best instead of where technology is best.
People having to split small spaces, has the same quality of life impact to most people. There is no misconception of what NYC is, lots of people just don't want the life of either paying a ton of money, or not having what they consider to be a bare minimum amount of space, to not even make more (hell the median salary in NYC is 30K less than Seattle right now!). Being from the east coast, there is little doubt in my mind that NYC is one of the worst deals in the country right now which is correctly reflected in this article. In Seattle: I'm a 10 minute drive, and 20 minute bus commute from my work, and the mortgage on my house + maintenance cost is probably less than or equal to your cost for a portion of an apartment.
Essentially it's saying the average (legitimate) software engineering salary in Moscow is too low to afford the average rental + cost of living. Which probably helps explain why so much ransomware etc comes out of there...
So you think, having more retail space, more office buildings, more construction, etc is unrelated to jobs. Yep makes sense... What do you really think is more valuable a block of houses in San Francisco among many other blocks of houses, or if there was still any, a block of houses where a highrise could be built in Manhattan? Note also what's happening in the US is cities are disproportionately getting more expensive, people want to live near density. Jobs that used to be out in corporate parks, are moving, because non of the younger generation wants that life style. This is also why one of the cities that's increasing density and rezoning the fastest, Seattle, keeps having the highest increase in value for single family homes.
Without bringing job density into the equation, the demand is much much higher from the land value increase when zones move up. Is not at all unheard of for a SFH that was worth max 500K on the SFH market to be bought for over a million by developers when an area has gotten upzoned. Now, going back to jobs, in practicality, allowing upzones, also tends to bring way more jobs - more coffee shops / corporate towers etc.
Good. There has been a Yimby movement for a while in Seattle which has built several times the housing of San Francisco and Oakland combined over the last few years: http://www.spur.org/news/2017-06-15/keep-building-oakland. , and while it is still getting more expensive it is doing much much better than the Bay Area at keeping cost down. All the while, being an equally good place to live (I prefer Seattle by leaps and bounds, many prefer San Francisco.). As a result of this, Seattle is also growing at 3X the rate of San Francisco.
It's more complicated than that. Yes by increasing density, you are increasing supply of housing units, but you are also increasing the demand for your property - as now it's not only a single family that would be looking to buy it but but someone building a highrise. Also, counterintuitively, because your allowing houses to be torn down for apartment buildings etc, the supply of SFH actually goes down, and there will always be demand from some for SFH over condos etc. And since most cities can't keep up with the number of people who want to live in them, by allowing more young people to move to the city in apartments, your also increasing future demand as they grow up.
Seattle has built several times the housing of San Francisco and Oakland combined over the last few years: http://www.spur.org/news/2017-06-15/keep-building-oakland. , and while getting more expensive is doing much much better than the Bay Area at keeping cost down. All the while, being an equally good place to live (I prefer Seattle by leaps and bounds, many prefer San Francisco.). As a result of this, Seattle is also growing at 3X the rate of San Francisco.
You keep telling yourselves that while we in Seattle keep building and funneling more people that would have lived in San Francisco here because we're able to keep up with Demand ;)
This is super interesting to me, because in the Seattle bubble I live in, I feel like everyone my age has at most 1 car, often 0. Usually a small car (I have a compact prius) and drives transit the vast majority of the time. We also are very good about recycling and composting within the city.
Serious question: Could a user of such a device, wear some sort of protective hat for situations like this? Since you can't really fully predict where interference can occur, and otherwise avoiding it could cause you not to be able to have anything resembling a normal life.
No, I, don't because they are my own at home projects that haven't taken off, but I'm able to use the same library and code structure at work for things that absolutely do need microservice because of the power of the framework. And if any of my at home projects take off and I have huge teams and load then I may need microservices. It becomes a deployment question instead of a code question with the right framework.
It depends how you do micro services. There are middle grounds. One big gain of micro-services is that it guarantees things are separate and can be handled by separate teams if the need arises. That doesn't mean you need to start out that way. For instance in Python I use hug to create my microservices https://github.com/timothycrosley/hug, then I can just install them to create a "monolithic" services that consumes all the microservices, the great thing is that hug allows you to expose both as a webservices, and as a Python library so I can consume as a Python library with no overhead, until the need to split is evident, and then can split up the services with very little work. Of course the need may never arrive, but the modularity that is forced when using micro-services pays dividends quickly regardless
but again, this is not something that allowing double calls within a minute on minute boundaries actually makes any difference on. Someone would have to be abusing it more then just a little bit for you to know to take action in either setup by the same degree. IE you can't investigate every single time one customer goes over limits by mistake if you have any sizable number of customers.
I would think if you have a consumer application that can't handle double what is set as the rate limit during a very small corner case (start and end of the the minute barrier) you have bigger problems. As you're still effectively enforcing your rate limit over time with that approach. This just sounds like micro-optimization at its worst.
I think the argument the original poster is trying to make is: statistics say people that eat fish are more healthy, but this is because of certain components of fish (like Omega 3s) and not something only providable by fish. These other sources (like flax seeds for omega3s) aren't shown to have large amounts of toxins. However, because it takes a variety of alternative foods to get all the healthy components in fish - even though an individual will be better off doing that - it would be hard and complex to find enough individuals eating all the healthy things combined to statistically show it's healthier then fish.
Well that's def not true: Tableau, Rover, OfferUp, and countless more http://www.geekwire.com/startup-list/ and that's with only 2.61% of venture investment.
Really meant San Fran. An extreme disproportionate amount of investment dollars go there considering just how much value has come out of Seattle with much less starting capital.
It's faster than SATA SSD but slower than most NVMe M.2 SSDs: http://www.anandtech.com/show/11227/intel-launches-optane-me.... Because of when this was launched, and the fact it only works with newer processors that also support NVMe, by the time it is at all common place, so would M.2 SSDs, making it a weird concept. It's essentially the most expensive per GB NVMe drive, with worse performance, and some software to automate caching.