One of my guilty pleasures as a software engineer is that working on my Winchester House is way more fun than working on someone else's Cathedral, or Bazaar.
Since the government and corporations aggressively spy on everyone, and since government programs are often incompetent or overfunded or underfunded or corrupted or evil, there is (justly) little faith in the government.
Cash works fine. It can't be censored easily, it can't be tracked easily. ATMs have it.
Someone mentioned environment maps. Anything that's done with framebuffers or render-to-texture might benefit. e.g. Water reflections and refractions, metal surfaces reflecting the world, mirrors in bathrooms, panini distortion for high-FOV cameras, TV screens like the Breencasts in Half-Life 2
The most immediate benefit is reduced memory use. Many devices are memory limited and with skyrocketing RAM prices this is becoming more problematic.
Oversubscription drops performance catastrophically, but even without running into memory limits, compression reduces bandwidth which increases performance and lowers power use. This results in better experiences and longer battery life.
But in order to be compressed, don't we have to load the image into memory first, uncompressed? I don't quite see how this could result in reduced memory usage.
It needs to be decompressed, but it does not stay uncompressed. That memory is only used temporarily. Games usually have a pinned staging buffer to upload data to the GPU. This memory is reused and does not contribute significantly to the total memory use.
There's no one silver bullet, it will have to be a multi-front push:
1. Just build more
2. Zone for multi-family housing
3. Get rid of minimum parking and minimum lot size requirements
4. Allow mixed-user residential and commercial buildings
5. Shift property tax towards taxing the land and exempting buildings from tax, to force speculators to sell vacant land and derilect buildings for development
6. When things start moving, invest in walkability and public transit to support dense urban cores. Cars are great for low-density, but paying for miles of road and polluted air in dense city cores is silly behavior
#2 - #4 are really just specific ways of accomplishing #1.
Most people don't want to live in dense urban cores, so #5 and #6 can easily backfire and stunt progress on #1.
Just let people decide what to build where, both as individuals and communities. If dense urban cores truly are the "better" way of living, it will prove itself soon enough without the urbanists trying to force everyone down their path to their own detriment.
> Most people don't want to live in dense urban cores, so #5 and #6 can easily backfire and stunt progress on #1.
80% of the US population would disagree. It really seems like you’re applying what you like to the entire population and then assuming that anything else is rubbish.
Having grown up in a rural community, and small towns, I never really want to go back. Dense urban areas are wonderful, I find huge amounts of joy in multiculturalism. The plethora of ideas, language, food, and art is inspiring. I will never get that anywhere except dense urban areas.
Demand vs supply is the crux of the affordability crisis, and the points outlined in the post you’re replying to are all valid and great ways to help increase supply.
And FWIW—- you’re absolutely welcome to enjoy and appreciate sparsely populated areas, but I really think you need to understand the vast majority of people disagree with you. Not because they’re “stuck” in some dense urban area but because they want to be there.
I don't know where you're coming up with that 80% number because the actual percentage of people living in dense urban cores is much lower. Many people live in neighborhoods that the Census classifies as "urban" but that includes a lot of neighborhoods that most regular people would classify as suburban. It turns out that given a choice, most people prefer to have some space and privacy rather that being squeezed together in high-rise apartments.
> 80% of the US population would disagree. It really seems like you’re applying what you like to the entire population and then assuming that anything else is rubbish.
I live by choice in what would be considered an urban area by the US Census, but is far from a dense urban core (by the character of the neighborhood, it's only a few miles away by distance). Either you don't understand what the Census data is saying or you're misrepresenting what myself and others are saying here.
> Having grown up in a rural community, and small towns, I never really want to go back. Dense urban areas are wonderful, I find huge amounts of joy in multiculturalism. The plethora of ideas, language, food, and art is inspiring. I will never get that anywhere except dense urban areas.
Good for you. My point, which seems to be lost on most urbanists, is that not everyone feels that way, or wants to live in that environment (consider me part of the second group, as I enjoy having access to quality food, art, entertainment, etc. but also enjoy having a yard for my kids to play in and enough distance between myself and my neighbors to have privacy and peace at home).
If someone has no interest in being inspired by multicultural food and would rather eat at a familiar restaurant in a small town, I feel no need to compel them to experience it.
> Demand vs supply is the crux of the affordability crisis, and the points outlined in the post you’re replying to are all valid and great ways to help increase supply.
Some are more valid than others. Building is good, compelling communities to increase density against their will is not.
> And FWIW—- you’re absolutely welcome to enjoy and appreciate sparsely populated areas, but I really think you need to understand the vast majority of people disagree with you. Not because they’re “stuck” in some dense urban area but because they want to be there.
There's a large gulf of housing stock and communities between "sparsely populated areas" and "dense urban areas" commonly called "the suburbs", where most people in the US live.
And I don't think the people who live in dense urban areas are stuck there. I just don't think the echo chamber of city planners, YIMBY advocates, and leftist politicians, all of whom believe that more density across every metropolitan area is the "correct" path forward, should have the final say on what communities are allowed to build or not build.
places where there is remaining land to build more single family homes don't actually have zoning regulations requiring developers to build high-density units. there is nothing stopping anyone from buying land and building there, except a lack of demand.
the place where there is leverage is in taking high-demand areas historically zoned for single-unit and opening them up to the market to build higher density housing.
> the place where there is leverage is in taking high-demand areas historically zoned for single-unit and opening them up to the market to build higher density housing.
And if the current residents don't want to open up, then what?
And they are not the only opportunity to increase density or satisfy demand, just the most politically convenient one for the party in power in almost every case.
what's your alternative? (a) leave things they are and if people near cities get desperate enough they can move to the sticks even though they don't have jobs there (b) ?
My alternative to higher levels of government deciding to overrule local preferences is that people move to "the sticks", get roommates, or compensate current residents for the decrease in their quality of living that comes with increased density.
If you don't want to live in an apartment, buy a house outside of the urban core. Are you arguing that cities should not build infrastructure or make it nice for the people living there?
No, he's saying the government should get out of deciding what to build and make it legal to build so that people build more housing, of any type, period. "Just buy a house outside of an urban core" is only possible if such housing exists.
There are reasons to have some kind of building rules. Noice, smell and shade are valid reasons to limit certain types of buildings (or activities within those buildings).
No, I'm saying that the assumption shouldn't be that everyone wants to live in an urban core, that everyone should live in one, or that it is righteous to advocate for everyone to do so.
Specifically, most government planners seem to assume increased density is a universal good, which is not the case in reality, so I'm saying that those planners should not compel everyone to live in a dense urban core.
Has anyone ever assumed that all people want to live in urban cores? However, current planning in the US seems to assume that most people want to live in car dependent suburbs.
Android has a debug tool that flashes colors when any composed layer changes. It's probably an easy optimization for them to not re-render when nothing changes.
Not GP but I assume the fixed prices have to be fairly high to account for people using lots of power during peak demand when most people use lots of power?
For me I'm happy to avoid big power draws during the peak times, as I'm 'compensated' for it outside of those periods with a little planning. Downside is when the wind is not blowing AND disruptions to global energy markets - I'm exposed to that, warts and all, there's definitely been an increase in prices over the past 4 weeks, although there has been a few days (including today) where the wind has basically made the energy free and my average unit rate is dropping again.
It's not only that, you also need reserve for the intermittent sources like wind and solar.
I live on an island, we have big batteries that can supply up to 15 MW of power for a period. In the Netherlands we have natural gas plants that are called up when the wind or sun output decreases, lest the grid frequency drop.
reply