It's hard to remember, but as soon as gitlab showed up, GitHub went from a "maybe someday if I make it" site to a "let's just use GitHub for everything" site.
Prior to gitlab ratcheting up the usability, features, and cost effectiveness, I preferred hosted git for 99% of use cases.
I like the perspective, but then the concrete example given (adding a new GitHub action) is such a trivial 2-way door that I am worried for the author. There are better companies out there!
They were wrong for us. Cloudflare is in a much different position than we were in 2019 trying to get people to write new Javascript. Clearly, for us, running people's existing applications natively was the better call. We're not dunking on Cloudflare's model.
> Currently, Caltrain is providing that power to the grid free of charge as there is no legal requirement for the agency to be reimbursed for the energy generated.
With further investment in energy storage it sounds like they could nearly cover a lost subsidy.
Moreover, the improved service from electric (faster acceleration and better air quality) seem very worthwhile.
I'd like to see some evidence for that -- sure, there are a lot of people in big cities that are happy with high density (but even many of them move out to the suburbs when they decide to settle down and have kids), but there are many people in the USA that won't give up their 2000 sq ft house with 3 car garage that fits their F150 pickup.
Much of my midwest family is that way - they couldn't believe how tiny my "city" apartment was that wasn't even in the city, it was a 1600 sq ft townhouse that was a 40 minute commute from city center.
It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
Zoning rules are the evidence. Eliminate the zoning rules and let the market sort it out. No? Why not, are you afraid the "character" will change immediately?
you're severely out of touch. Only around 15% of Californians can afford to buy a home. Why can't they buy a home? LACK of Inventory. You can see this on the news, you can quote experts everywhere saying this. There's not enough houses and that raises prices. So how do you lower prices? Build more homes. How do you build more homes? Increase density. Yeah if you're in the 15% sure, buy a big home. If you're in the 85%, well you want to buy a smaller home. You can safely assume 85% of the people who can't afford a home, want cheaper homes and therefore want higher density.
>It's going to take decades (or some catastrophic disaster) to get Americans to change that mindset and give up low density living.
Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming. And you can see the effects of global warming in the weather in the US. There have already been entire cultures and peoples uprooted from where they live because of rising sea levels. The luxuries we enjoyed living in cities designed for cars is bought and paid for with our future.
You can't force developers to build what they can't sell at a profit.
I'm sure San Francisco would love to have more billion dollar high density buildings, but can a developer sell enough million dollar condos to pay for them? Is there any evidence that it's zoning that's keeping more residentials towers from being built in downtown SF?
>Bro, that catastrophic disaster is called global warming
It's not a catastrophic disaster yet -- nearly all Americans sat at home in comfort watching the LA fires. People don't see a disaster if it doesn't affect them, then it's just a tragedy.
It is zoning that is stopping high density from going up. The house owners are stopping it. You. When you remove those restrictions you get tons of projects wanting to execute on that.
Look up builders remedy.
In the Bay Area, examples of "Builder's Remedy" projects include proposed developments in cities like Mountain View, Menlo Park, Saratoga, and Los Gatos, where developers leverage the state law to build high-density housing projects in areas previously resistant to new development, often by proposing large apartment complexes or mixed-use developments on sites zoned for lower density housing, particularly in affluent communities that haven't met state housing mandates; notable examples include a 200-unit project at 1920 Gamel Way in Mountain View and a large development at the Mountain Winery near Saratoga, which could include a hotel alongside residential units, all while utilizing the "Builder's Remedy" to bypass local zoning restrictions due to the inclusion of a significant portion of affordable housing within the project.
Key points about Bay Area Builder's
Targeted areas:
Developers often target affluent cities like Menlo Park, Los Gatos, and parts of Santa Clara County, where housing needs are high but local resistance to new development is strong.
High-density development:
These projects often propose significantly denser housing than what is typically allowed under local zoning, including multi-story apartment buildings.
Affordable housing inclusion:
To qualify for "Builder's Remedy," developers must include a substantial percentage of affordable housing units within the project.
Local opposition:
While intended to address housing shortages, these projects often face significant local opposition from residents concerned about increased density and potential impacts on their neighborhoods. These are rich house owners who own a home and they are the 15% who oppose the 85 percent who don’t. It’s class warfare.
> It's not a catastrophic disaster yet -- nearly all Americans sat at home in comfort watching the LA fires. People don't see a disaster if it doesn't affect them, then it's just a tragedy.
LA is your front doorstep and I lived in LA about two miles from the border of the fire.
Yeah watch from the comfort of your own home. Give it some more time and one day people will be watching you from the comfort of their own home.
Let me explain: projects usually support only one package manager. In a world of N competing JS package managers, you need to ban lock files from N-1 of them.
