Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | trinovantes's comments login

Many suburban cities in Canada like Mississauga are also experiencing this. They've finally ran out of land to sell so they started raising property taxes and instituted levies

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-mississauga-a...


Mississauga has a density of 2467 people per square kilometer. Mississauga neighbourhoods look like this-

https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.5675623,-79.740886,916m/data=...

That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get.

Mississauga had to raise property taxes somewhat -- still extremely competitive -- as a revenue source dried up. But those new neighbourhoods all easily pay for themselves in property taxes. Nonetheless, loads of really silly narrative comes out of Toronto writers, still foreboding this dire scenario that they've been pitching for well over a decade. It's a bit farcical at this point.


> about as dense as single family homes can get

These traditional north american houses are still not very space efficient at all (large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage).

“Suburban” neighborhoods in Europe easily have double or triple the density of this. I also see zero townhouses or anything with 2+ floors in that area.


> I also see zero townhouses or anything with 2+ floors in that area.

Maybe you meant 2+ units? 'Cause almost all of them have 2+ floors, and many will have livable basements as well.


>>(large unused garden + lawn + double parking spot + garage)

I don't know about you, but I actively use and enjoy every one of those things.

Perhaps you enjoy apartment living and consider anything not active indoors a waste.

If so, good for you, I wouldn't want to impose a garden or a parking spot on you. By the same token, calling these out as if they could possibly not be useful, simply because you do not think them useful, is at best, a fallacy.


You can enjoy active outdoors without wasting space on concrete car desert. It's called "parks".

> That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get.

You can get a little bit denser by going full street grid--Chicago's single family home districts look to mostly be rocking ~6-9k people/km².


I might be the only one but I strongly prefer grid-layout cities to these winding suburb road layouts anyhow. When your city is a grid you can make street names mean something and a person can navigate from place to place easily and have an intuitive idea of how far away something is, both without a cellphone.

Yeah - Phoenix has a basically 1 mile grid, with lil side streets in-between the major intersections.

I hate it, because if you miss a turn, you basically have to go another full mile to hit another 'cross street'.


I think you are the only one.

I grew up in Chicago on a perfect grid. Now I live on a street that I picked precisely because you only drive down it if you live there. I don't like the sound of cars driving past. That's a personal preference that seems pretty generalized, even among people without kids.

And on a street like that, you don't need speed bumps, because people aren't speeding down the street.


But that’s the thing. The street’s utility is exclusively to the houses that are on it. Those houses are very unlikely to be paying enough property tax to cover its existence. This luxury of yours is paid for by other people’s productive activity in the future. Great deal for you! But we the (net) taxpayers ought to think about how many more of these sweetheart deals we offer to cul de sac homeowners in the future, before we bankrupt ourselves.

I’m not a libertarian, I think it’s fine for government to tap rich people to provide nice things for everyone, but this particular nice thing (way more roadway than you pay for) has a pretty bad cost:benefit, and its beneficiaries are not exactly the neediest or most deserving of aid.


or if not 'tap the rich', better structure the payouts so there isn't such an imbalance. wage stagnation is a BIG problem.

You can have both, if you have a grid of main through-roads for transporting people around and then inside each "square" of the grid you have a continued fractal of sub-grids which aren't for through-traffic (slower speed limits, narrower streets, traffic calming measures, difference in material to make clear the difference from through-roads and local streets etc.). People traveling past won't use the inner streets because they aren't efficient for that, but people living in the neighbourhood will use the inner streets.

A big problem is this sort of design makes it hard to walk between places. All travel involves going to the main road, going some distance down that and then following a new branch. Queue route map that requires 10 minute drive to get to the "next block".

Not too bad in you car but it means that you can't walk or bike anywhere unless they have put in paths between blocks. Means that if a 15-year-old kids wants an ice-cream their parent has to drive them to the corner store.


He's definitely not the only person who prefers cities to suburbs. What?

Now, I think almost everyone would prefer if their one street were not integrated into the grid. That would be the ideal. You live in a grid, but with none of the downsides. But failing that, many people opt to live in denser areas rather than the burbs, even if the cost is that folks sometimes drive down their street who are going someplace else..


Are American cardboard walls and windows actually that bad that you can hear cars through them?

There's a good video explaining how urban and suburban residents alike want less traffic in their neighborhoods: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqQw05Mr63E

you’re definitely not the only one. grids make much more sense. and not only for ease of navigation.

> That isn't apartment building density, but that's about as dense as single family homes can get.

Roughly the equivalent of pointing to IBM as the most high paying and prestigious tech companies can get.

It would be trivial to increase the density there by reducing setback requirements, narrowing the roads, removing minimum parking requirements.


Almonds, crunchy and healthy

(yes I'm aware they're pretty bad for the environment)


I'd assume it'd be easier to build camaraderie between in-person coworkers than faceless Slack names. Coworkers that know each other well can probably collaborate better

As someone who has worked remote long before the pandemic, this is a myth in my experience. I have had at least as many friendships formed with remote coworkers as I have in person office workers.

Occasional get-togethers do help with this quite a lot, but it's not necessary.

What I find strange about this reasoning is: doesn't every hacker have friends from around the world they've never met in person? From various software projects, open source contributions, online community connections etc I have a fairly long list of people who are very important to me that I've never met in person.


> I have a fairly long list of people who are very important to me that I've never met in person

It happens for some but I can't say its the norm. Most people's meaningful relationships are based on real life, at least initially or some of the time.


You can solve that with occasional, in-person team meetups (a few times per year).

Meeting people in person, at least once, is valuable. It improves communication, helps people feel assimilated to the company and team, and creates a mental image of a three-dimensional co-worker (instead of just a faceless Slack handle)

Sitting physically next to people every day, especially for engineers, is often not valuable. This is especially true for those who have significant commutes or families.


> You can solve that with occasional, in-person team meetups (a few times per year).

Unfortunately this doesn't really cut it. There is a huge difference between the teams I worked in where we were all remote vs the ones where all of us were in the office. The camaraderie, the amount of slack we gave each other, how fast we delivered and the overall mood was much better despite having wildly different personalities.

With remote, you are interfacing with only one dimension of someone's personality and they may rub you the wrong way in a PR comment or otherwise and you can easily right them off. It's different when you go for lunch with the same person and talk about work or other stuff.

Another thing is that talking about work-related-but-not-current-project-related stuff is much easier when people in the same location and the conversation starts off spontaneously. Whereas in a remote setting it needs to be a bit more organized so there is an overhead.

There are a lot of pros to remote though, like not having to be subjected to your colleague's poor hygiene.


> You can solve that with occasional, in-person team meetups (a few times per year).

Doesn't ring true to me after spending 2 years in a remote-first setup. Even post-vcxx setup where everyone could meet freely didn't facilitate as much in-person interaction as I was looking forward to.

> Sitting physically next to people every day, especially for engineers, is often not valuable.

For junior engineers trying to onboard, sitting close to their mentors is big help. Same for senior TLs who are coordinating complex technical projects across a team of 10-12 engineers or even more. Having everyone around is a big time saver for the overall project. WFH/Remote setup is great only for the engineers who are self-sufficient and neither need mentoring from others nor have to coordinate and lead other engineers' work.


>Sitting physically next to people every day, especially for engineers, is often not valuable.

You make a lot of questionable assertions. Why would meeting up a few times a year be as good as seeing someone every day?


Even still surely some hybrid solution would suffice - where's the gain in daily office commute? I really start disliking my fellow workers when I am forced to see them everyday. Once or twice a week makes everyone more tolerable.

> some hybrid solution would suffice

Hybrid enables a move from San Francisco to e.g. Petaluma. It doesn't permit most workers to move to Idaho. That argues for an expansion of the Bay Area over its demise.


It's hard to tell what will happen; surely most American companies will leave a main headquarters in the U.S which will probably be hybrid. Than they will have lower cost centers (that will be either remote or hybrid as well). Overall probably this will push down wages in SV and move it up in places like Germany or Ukraine. But I don't think it will be that dramatic. Salaries will still be very generous in SV.

Aren't large portions of stock compensation at most large companies paid out in years 3 and 4? Assuming you survive past the 2 year mark, you may as well stay for another two years

I thought that was Amazon specific?

Yes, but 4 years vest is standard, and new hire grants are significantly larger than refresher grants, so with stock appreciation the way it's been over the last decade years 3 and 4 have tended to be very lucrative for RSU-holding tech employees.

I got off FB by redirecting all traffic to mbasic.facebook.com. I still got those dopamine hits initially but the inconvenience of the UI eventually made me use the site less and less.

Twitter killed itself for me when it started sending me non stop notifications for tweets from people I don't even know

HN's noprocrast mode is pretty useful


> For a number of years, we’ve had a program in place called Queue Dodge. It’s a program that lets anyone opt out of Riot within their first six months and get paid part of their salary [10%] to help transition to whatever is next.

I can't tell if this is a good or bad offer. It's about a 6 week severance pay for the company to let unsuitable employees to voluntarily quit.


It definitely feels like survivorship bias. We only remember the good software of the past while forgetting the hundreds of buggy mess created by companies that are probably defunct by now

I wonder if people are forgetting that not long ago, it was acceptable and normal that your word processor could have a bug in it which would crash the entire OS. Or how almost everything was insecure by default.

Or your email client would open and execute every file attached and it would do so with root permissions.

Nobody found that acceptable except computer programmers.

Well it didn’t really matter what users thought because that’s how it was. Modern programming and software is massively improved and the failure modes are much safer.

I remember those days. It was never acceptable. We just didn’t have any other choice.


Oracle?

Oracle is a marketing department and two law firms in a trench coat.

Over the last 2 years, the west coast has seen:

- Consecutive days of record breaking heat waves

- Wildfires that turn the sky red

- Floods that briefly cut off road access between Vancouver and the rest of Canada

Considering that this is just at only +1.3 C is a scary thought. As the average temperature continues to rise, extreme weather events will become more likely and happen more often.


At that fatality rate, the virus would probably struggle to spread as its carriers would all die first. The sweet spot is probably around 40-50% like the bubonic plague

It all depends on incubation period. A 100% fatal disease with a 3-week infectious incubation period could take out a whole populationvin only a little longer than that, save isolated pockets.

Greater good of what?

Marriage and birth rates are plummeting even in collective societies in Asia


Greater good

>The benefit of the public, of more people than oneself


You should be more specific i.e. greater good of society, greater good of economy, or both

Either way, our current society and economy is pretty hostile towards marriage and children hence the decline



> greater good isn’t in the Cambridge Dictionary yet. You can help!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: