tlogan

I just want to give one more example. I wanted to watch “Just Beyond” (2021 Disney), but it’s impossible to find anywhere. So what am I supposed to do?

And then they wonder why they get tarrifs…

And it would take 10 days from event horizon to the singularity.

While pitched as “helping people,” California’s fast-food minimum wage law has a different goal: reshaping the state’s tourism appeal. By making dining out feel more distinctive (and by nudging the market toward small restaurants and local chains) it’s a strategic play to make California a cooler place to visit and eat.

That’s how I’ve interpreted it - because otherwise, it makes little sense why the wage for the same work would vary based on the size of the company.

OK - so we are not crazy.

The official response seems to be: set reasoning to the lowest and service_tier to priority, and it should work as fast as GPT-4o. But that is not the case.

They are probably still tuning it. Or maybe GPT-5 is not meant to be replacement for GPT-4o / GPT-4.1. Or this is going to be a new normal (slowest).

> If true …

I don’t know about his investments, but one fact is clear: he was CEO of Cadence Design Systems, which has just pleaded guilty to federal charges for exporting technology to China. That alone should make him ineligible to lead a company with major government contracts.

If he resigns (and he will), the board should go with him.

The key question is this: how did the board of directors hire him knowing he had been subpoenaed to testify regarding Cadence Design Systems, and that the company has now agreed to plead guilty.

That is not accurate. Research consistently shows that gas line pollution, lack of bike infrastructure, racial inequality, and climate change are the most significant stressors.

\s

( Sorry for sarcasm :)

Intel just cannot get a break. This does seem like the case of national security concerns - not really Trump being Trump.

I doubt the board would approve him as CEO if they knew he’d been subpoenaed in the Cadence matter.

The key of the new proposal is how they are going to define zones (neighbourhoods). Knowing the politics in SF, I think they will probably say that zone is 7-miles radius (and SF is 49 square miles).

Essentially, this was the cheapest solution for our “limousine liberals” to address the problem of racial and economic segregation in San Francisco’s public schools. The idea was simple: since schools in areas like Hunter’s Point struggle, while those in neighborhoods like the Sunset perform well, the district decided to send students from Hunter’s Point to Sunset schools, and vice versa in order to “balance” outcomes.

But in practice, it backfired. Most families in the Sunset opted out: either by enrolling their children in private schools or moving out of city. The policy didn’t create meaningful integration; it just hollowed out neighborhood public schools and made traffic worse.

A striking example: St. Ignatius Catholic school located on Sunset Boulevard is now undergoing a $200 million campus expansion, while SFUSD is closing public schools due to declining enrollment.

Children may not attend their neighborhood school in SFUSD because the system prioritizes diversity, equity, and access over proximity. They do that to address racial and economic segregation but basically it was the cheapest way to solve the problem. See Board Policy 5101.

I think in 2027, SFUSD might be transitioning to an elementary zone-based assignment system. I’m not anymore involved in that but I can tell that is a very very politically charged. Very ugly. All they did it make website more confusing.

In the end, only 20% of kids ended up going to their neighborhood schools. [1]

[1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/sf-sch...

I completely agree. Though implementing it is far easier said than done.

Here in San Francisco (and much of California), things are incredibly complicated.

Take this example: in SF, there’s a policy that prevents kids from attending elementary school in their own neighborhoods. Instead, they’re assigned to schools on the opposite side of town. In places that are practically inaccessible without a car. And there are no school buses.

Changing that policy has proven nearly impossible. But if kids could actually attend local schools, biking or walking would be realistic options. That one shift alone could make a huge difference in reducing car dependence.

The percentage of Asian drivers is less than 1%. Maybe that’s a bigger factor than the speed limit?

Apologies for the joke but I want to emphasize that there are so many variables at play here.

My theory is that it is because they have better public transportation and way less cars on the road.

Maybe Helsinki isn’t special: just fewer cars. And they apparently only 21% of daily trips used a private car.

Helsinki has about 3x fewer vehicles per capita than the average U.S. city. So it’s not surprising it’s safer since fewer cars mean fewer chances of getting hit by one. Plus their cars are much smaller.

In fact, there are probably plenty of U.S. towns and cities with similar number of cars that have zero traffic deaths (quick search says that Jersey City, New Jersey has zero traffic deaths in 2022).

So maybe it’s not about urban planning genius or Scandinavian magic. Maybe it’s just: fewer things that can kill you on the road.

I wonder how the numbers will change when majority of cars are autonomous.

In San Francisco, the housing crisis poses a far greater and more immediate threat to children’s well-being than this issue. Lack of stable, affordable housing affects everything: education, health, safety, and long-term opportunity.

We can debate other problems, but unless we address the fundamental need for proper housing, everything else should be secondary.

In other news, San Francisco rents are up $223 from a year ago, with median rent rising 11% year-over-year [1].

But hey, at least we’re safe from the dangers of gas stoves. /s

[1] https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/market-trends/san-fran...

> Rents are high because landlords are greedy

I understand the frustration, but it’s probably unfair to single out landlords specifically. Greed isn’t unique to landlords: it’s a universal human trait. We’re all greedy.

History reminds us of at least one person who famously preached against greed, and humanity’s reaction was to nail him to a cross.

Let me give you a concrete example.

In Sunset (San Francisco), most houses still have 100–150 amp electrical panels. To support full electrification these panels typically need to be upgraded to 200 or maybe 300 amps.

That upgrade alone costs around $10,000, including labor, permitting (which is surprisingly expensive), and inspections. If rewiring the house is also required (which is often the case) that can push the total to $30,000.

But it doesn’t stop there. PG&E’s infrastructure in many areas like Sunset is already maxed out. If your upgrade triggers a red flag, PG&E may require additional capacity upgrades. However, they won’t pay for them (they’ll just refuse the work until you do). These utility-related infrastructure upgrades can cost anywhere from $25,000 to $50,000, and yes, those costs fall on the homeowner.

So in total, you could be looking at $60,000 or more for this.

San Francisco home prices have increased approximately 2.5 to 2.6 times over the past 25 years after adjusting for inflation [1]. Nominal prices in San Francisco grew by over four‑fold in 25 years.

I bet the reason for this rule that house price in SF are finally in step with inflation.

Anyway Im not against doing this but let’s be honest here: this is going to make houses just less affordable. The are some benefits of this rule but affordability is not the one.

[1] https://www.redfin.com/city/17151/CA/San-Francisco/housing-m...

The very big issue in San Francisco is the severe lack of affordable housing. When renovations become significantly more expensive, those costs inevitably get passed on to renters: making the crisis even worse.

If regulations like these are necessary, they should be applied in areas without a housing affordability crisis. But somehow, it’s always the high-cost cities that get hit with even more burdens.

I’m not sure where you live, but in my case, I wasn’t even able to get home insurance without an automatic gas shutoff valve. Our policy also required an automatic shutoff for water. So in that sense, earthquake safety is already being addressed through insurance requirements.

Ultimately, mandates like this just make housing even more expensive. Which, frankly, seems to be the real goal. God forbid home prices actually decline or even stop rising.

This is an excellent way to solve the housing crisis in San Francisco: sarcasm fully intended.

Stories like this just reinforce the obvious: the housing crisis is a problem of our own making. Wealthy residents and NIMBYs consistently show they have no interest in helping the poor, the homeless, or working-class people who simply want a place to live. The ones hit hardest are usually younger generations.

This should not be a political issue. Whether on the left or the right, rich people will always find a reason (legal, aesthetic, environmental, religious, etc.) to avoid fixing the housing problem. The excuses vary, but the outcome is the same.

This is a brilliant move by Google: it makes joining any AI startup even less appealing.

Stock options were always a lottery. But this takes the shenanigans to a whole new level.

When joining a startup, the most important factor isn’t the idea, product, or the VCs: it’s the founder(s).

Think like an investor. Would you back this person? Are they ethical? Are they resilient?

Also stock options should not be high on the list. Most startups fail before founders or VCs even get the chance to screw you over. In 99% of cases, nobody wins.

I assume this is AI related: they can automate more. But it could be also they found some loophole.

Apperently in certain regions have 150% increase in scam/spam call volume [1].

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5357927-robo...

I doubt - all my information was always 100% public. It is not like “warranty” calls and other crap are new to me.

It is just that volume is increasing.

There is something more going on.

Sadly, these kinds of high-level decisions (which really do not matter in the grand scheme of things) only make it harder to combat real anti-Semitism: the real anti-Semitism is when people assume you need to move to Israel, and imply that you’re not a “real” American.

I have a question:

- What are the main challenges in building software that relies solely on camera input?

- Which specific modules or tasks still require LiDAR to function reliably?

And they also added requirements what must be insured and maximum out of pocket.

So you cannot have a cheap insurance with 20k max out of pocket.