With so much surveillance I think there's a real need for E2E on anything. I just bought the basic Tutanota package - but maybe that's just my OCD acting out.
Have only lightly dabbled in latex but Typst was super easy to pickup. I recently even published a whole book[0] in Typst. The process was straightforward for the most part. It took a little time to work out how to get page numbers alternating between the left and right side and a few other small formatting details but by and large it was very easy to create a beautiful PDF that's ready for printing.
Also, pandoc has fairly good support for Typst so I use that to create a docx (which Draft2Digital converts to epub). I even opened a few issues (https://github.com/jgm/pandoc/issues?q=sort%3Aupdated-desc%2...) for pandoc support and they were almost all resolved pretty quickly.
Does it seem like the calendar protocol will be able to replace the VTODO bit of ical so that Todo applications can be built on top of it? I've played around with ics files a bit for the tasks app in nextcloud and it wasn't a pleasant experience so I kinda dropped the project.
It’s also an example of the "spatial fix," where global capital parks itself in real estate as a safe asset rather than in the local economy. Basically turning urban housing into a storage vehicle for surplus wealth instead of a place for people to live.
We already have this in the Netherlands. In order to deter squatters you can hire a student to live in your property.
You can kick them out on short notice.
And you should not. Hyping real estate prices or just putting massive real estate to disuse and often pricing the locals out is a big problem but so is losing a property to squatting. Such things don’t always involve millionaires and billionaires.
Devils advocate: is it really such a problem? Perhaps it should be banned simply on moralistic grounds.
But I fail to see how a hundred or so buildings sold to millionaires and billionaires numbering in the thousands has any affect at all in a city with 20 million people.
Again, surely it’s not the best nor most democratic thing that these buildings exist at all.
But I don’t see how it can impact the bread and butter real estate and rental market. Surely this is caused by the city’s numerous bad housing policies like rent control, zoning, public transportation, education.
I disagree. We should encourage this. It's the best form of export: you sell a good, but the good stays in place. It also collects taxes, taxes that are used for the benefit of the local population, without those who pays those taxes consuming a lot of local government services. On the rare occasions that these billionaires visit their luxury residence, they inject plenty of cash in the local economy. Why would you want to eliminate this?
Paying an entity for building a useless empty building, so that they can build another useless empty building... All as a kind of wealth insurance scheme for a rich person who has reason to think their assets might not be safe in their home country (because they were obtained in corrupt or illegal ways?).
> Why would you want to eliminate this?
Because I believe we can do better than living off the scraps of the obscenely wealthy.
Regardless, given the scarcity of housing space in NYC, I’d expect that if more of it is used as a store of wealth, housing prices will generally increase.
Are you suggesting that, in practice, the currently levied taxes prevent this?
There is no scarcity of housing space in NYC. NYC is a very large city. About 80% of it is low rises. If you want to increase the housing supply, you an do just that: you approve more building permits. 10 or 20 or even 50 sky scrappers will not change the availability of land in NYC.
Yes, and the current zoning / city council / NIMBYism death triangle means most development is poorly located.
In expensive parts of Northwest Brooklyn & Queens, the waterfront which is a 15 minute walk to the subway was zoned to put up a ton of 40+ story residential towers. It's far enough away that many of them run private shuttle busses to the subway.
Meanwhile the subway station (Bedford Ave particularly) that you walk to from said waterfront is surrounded by 3-4 story buildings.. as is most of the walk there.
The difference is there were already people in those 3-4 story buildings to show up to city council meetings & whine about any zoning changes, unlike the previously industrial water front.
I can't find the thread but there was recently a discussion here about being asked to do things at work that are unethical and I thought this was fairly related.
Sure, but the article is saying the school's accreditation "validates its quality of education". I'm saying that's not really true. There are many schools that are accredited and are crap or scams. Accreditation on its own doesn't tell you much.
No, it doesn't. That info from the website is a gross mischaracterization and seemingly an attempt at self-promotion. It's like saying that your building has walls and a ceiling and is therefore in the same league as Notre Dame de Paris and the Taj Mahal.
As an example, some of Corinthian's colleges (Heald College) were accredited by WASC. . . until they declared bankruptcy in the face of multiple fraud investigations and a $30 million fine.
The accreditation is an extremely low bar. In my view it is so low it is harmful because it totally fails to distinguish legitimate schools from shady ones. Accredited colleges run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous.
That's not to say the school that this article is from is bad. I don't really know anything about this school. But the fact that they tout mere accreditation as putting them on par with Stanford and that they can't correctly name the University of California, Berkeley does not inspire confidence. The fact that it is nonprofit is a plus, though, as the worst of the crap-but-accredited schools are for-profit ones.
Makes sense for side projects. I think there's real value for open source projects so people can get feedback quickly and maintainers can know that the tests are passing quickly.
I feel lucky to live in SF where the library let's you print up to 20 pages per day for free. I really wonder how many people don't buy printers because of it. Then again many people can use work printers for free anyway.
wait since when is that free? I've popped into the main branch to run off documents and definitely paid per page (although it's only something like 5 or 10 cents).
reply