It’s kind of mind-blowing to remember that what’s the basic residential building standard everywhere else in the world is already “huge” in most American cities.
I'm not sure this comment is very useful. It is much too generic. Look at most "old cities" (think Hanseatic era) in Western Europe. Over 10 floors is a huge residential building in central, old areas. Residential buildings in the central arrondissements in Paris are rarely more than 5-6 floors. Same for London. Same for Hamburg. Same for Amsterdam.
The only place in San Francisco that has many residential buildings more than 3-4 floors and is building more/new is SoMa (South of Market) and Rincon Hill. (I have not lived there for 10+ years, so please correct me if I am wrong.) Sure there are some odd ducks in Russian Hill or Nob Hill, but they are from 1960s/70s. Nothing new is built there now, except billionaires doing a tear-down/re-build.
Wild idea: What if we build 4x fifty story apartment blocks on those four blocks that I mentioned at Mission District BART stations? You could do stuff like bottom 3-5 floors are all retail (small biz plus chains), then next 30 floors are middle class housing, and the upper floors are unlimited for the rich. I think it would be a good mix. The hardest part of the build might be creating enough car parking spots for the luxury units at the top. We might need to do something bizarre/exotic underground, or buy adjacent lots to tear-down for a multi-story parking lot. To be clear: I am not excited about building new parking garages in 2020s in urban San Francisco, but it is a reasonable compromise for selling luxury units at the top of the tower. All together, this mega project could be easily a 1B USD build. Another bonus: One floor in one tower near the top could be reserved as an observation deck/floor. That would be very cool, like a modern Coit Tower for the 2020s.
Trouble, maybe. But this is definitely possible. South Station in Boston is a giant subway, light rail, and Amtrak terminal—one of the largest in the city. Boston just finished building a skyscraper over the top of it—which they did without closing the station. It was pretty wild.
So is New York City. See Brookln, Queens, Bronx, and Staten Island. This comment doesn't say much. When people talk about density in SF, they are talking about the northeast quadrant. That is some of the most dense urban residential areas in the United States.
The city boundaries, which I admit is kind of arbitrary/weird for LA (city). If you include the county, or MSA it's obviously way less dense.
What bothers me the most is how so many Americans seem to have this irrational fear of cities. They think they are more dangerous, dirty, difficult, etc than they really are, by a wide margin. And they vastly under-estimate the amenities and quality of life they bring, along with the extent to which they make all of the wealth of the country even possible.
They wring their hands and complain that allowing more building will turn their city into NYC, which is just crazy on the face of it.
Look, I've visited NYC and there's a lot of nice things, such as mass transit that basically works, food options everywhere, etc. I liked it more than I expected I would.
But there's not a lot of peacefulness. There's certainly not peacefulness outside my bedroom windows anywhere I could afford to live. Sleeping with windows open and waking to birdsong rather than traffic sounds is quality of life for me.
I love cities, and even NYC, but I would never say that mass transit in NYC is "nice". Yes, it is convenient, but it probably needs 25B USD in refurbishment to bring it up to the level of any decent system in Western Europe or East Asia.
Brandolini alert. It only took me 7 seconds to Google search to disprove this statement. How long until we have an auto-bot that will just reject stupid, lazy, false comments like this?
My Google searches:
> los angeles city density
> 8,210 people per square mile
Next:
> new york city density
> 29,303 people per square mile
My family has a history of schizophrenia. Sometimes I feel tempted to start thinking about my mind as a collection of separate agents and separate voices, and quickly it starts to feel like it's pulling me into a place where I know I shouldn't be looking.
Compared to the uniformity of LLMs, human minds are fascinatingly different from each other. Are voices good, are they bad, or maybe you don't have even an inner monologue? Yet these differences mostly stay hidden and don't stop us from collaborating and understanding each other through empathy.
> My family has a history of schizophrenia. Sometimes I feel tempted to start thinking about my mind as a collection of separate agents and separate voices, and quickly it starts to feel like it's pulling me into a place where I know I shouldn't be looking.
No history of schizophrenia here, but my mind definitely is that way. (Thanks, DID!)
There's a theory (multiple theories, actually, like Internal Family System) that most minds are that way, they're just more or less distinctly separated.
> "Does a system need the knowledge of the full works of Shakespeare to be able to output Javascript?"
If the implementation brief says "attempting a reconnect in this handler would be a wild goose chase", the model needs to know enough Shakespeare, at least indirectly, to understand that expression...
This is basically what people were saying about Microsoft versus Google and other upstarts in the early 2000s.
Slow and steady wins the race. How could they lose to something on the web, when Microsoft owns the web browser itself? Everything runs on Windows and IE. They can just relax and wait for competitors to exhaust themselves, then quickly build their own version. Isn’t that how Netscape lost. Etc.
Now Google is the new Microsoft, just like Microsoft became the new IBM.
> This is basically what people were saying about Microsoft versus Google and other upstarts in the early 2000s.
They would have been right if Google's marquee product was an Office Suite.
Google was the AI company before AI companies were a thing. The comparison with Microsoft and IBM are misplaced because they failed to capture new territory; ML/AI is Google's stomping grounds. The criticism that Google is bad at consumer chatbots is true, but that's not where the real future value lays.
I've never heard or read anyone saying this in the early 2000s. They had publicly stated their contempt of the web earlier, made fools of themselves when they realized their mistake and went all-in on it, and spent the whole decade lagging behind. The closest they had to an online success was Wizzes.
For some of us OpenAI is already the new Google. I prefer chatgpt even when I'm searching for web links. Google Search had already been deteriorating terribly even before the rise of LLMs.
> "In 2017 Eric Lengyel published an algorithm, called Slug, that stopped dodging. It renders glyphs directly from their outlines in the fragment shader, with no texture atlas and no per-frame tessellation. Lengyel patented it in 2019, and on March 17, 2026 he dedicated that patent to the public domain."
It's nice that he gave the patent to public domain, but this is not how patents are supposed to work. You can't patent something two years after it was already published.
I'm guessing he actually filed for a patent before publishing, and the article should read: "Lengyel was granted a patent for it in 2019"
It's an AI-written article, so maybe it's not reasonable to expect it to be consistent on this level...
* The provisional patent application for the Slug algorithm was filed on March 27, 2017, and this is incorporated into the final patent at the beginning of the Description section. A provisional patent establishes a priority date for everything it discloses (which was the whole algorithm), and it gives the inventor one year to complete the application process.
* The JCGT paper was published a few months later on June 14, 2017, after the priority date.
* The final patent application was submitted on February 1, 2018, before the one-year deadline.
* The patent was granted about 1.5 years later by the USPTO on August 6, 2019.
You need to file before publishing to establish the priority date.
A sibling comment notes that he indeed filed a provisional patent in 2017 before going public. That’s the part that the article muddled. 2019 was when the patent was granted, not filed.
For consistency it ought to be called Unix.
reply