Nope, this is my only account (assuming you can trust anything I say). I signed up a while back when I was founding a startup company (because of course every founder needs to be on HN), but then stopped coming here after the startup disintegrated. I've started coming back after I got bored going to r/programming during long compiles.
Don't know, but probably there's some arbitrary legal complications associated to personal accounts so their lawyers simply decided to put those accounts into the "enterprise" category to avoid all the messes and now we're seeing collateral damages from this short-sighted decision.
Google apps for your domain is handled by the GSuite team. All their accounts have various extra requirements, like legal checks, not randomly adding features without consulting the admin, having different sets of servers for some services, having different treatment of private data (since the domain admin must be able to have some control over it) etc.
Some product teams within Google don't like all the extra overhead, paperwork, and complexity that adds, so instead they just block all enterprise accounts.
That makes it even more entertaining that they end up railing against the same poor google product policies. Does nobody ever collar a product manager in the hallway?
That only works if the identifier name is unique across your files. What if you have a field on class "Zoo" named "containers" and you want to replace it with "animal_containers", but only for the "Zoo" class? There are probably other usages of "containers" in the code, with no easy way for something like sed to distinguish between "zoo_instance.containers" and "car_instance.containers".
You need an editor that can understand "this usage of 'containers' refers only to class 'Zoo', so I should find all variables of type 'Zoo' which reference the 'containers' field and change those."
> That only works if the identifier name is unique across your files
hence
> It's not precise, so it might take some manual work and tweaking with the patterns
and like I said,
> for how often I've had to rename identifiers, it works good enough to handle the bulk work.
so
> You need an editor that can understand
No I don't, because renaming across many files is rare enough that I don't need it.
Most of the time, I do refactoring before it's gotten out of hand and so regular vim features like I mentioned in another comment are typically enough.
In other words, I think such understanding by the editor is too much complexity (and language-constrained, at that) for little reward.
You can always pay more in "taxes" if you want. The government is not going to refuse your money. If you want to donate money to the city and county of San Francisco, go here: http://sfgov.org/give2sf
> If you want rent to go down, allow more building. End of story. There's actually nothing else to it.
There's actually another solution, but people don't talk about it: reduce demand. Break some windows. Have a few organized robbery parties. Hold monthly "Stabby Sundays" where you just stab people randomly. That'll drive down demand, and prices will drop like a rock.
Obviously, I'm joking. Building more houses is the only solution to the problem of "a lot of people want to live here" and "it's almost impossible to build new houses."
I would argue the solution is build a lot of affordable housing. I've noticed in Berlin, a lot of new development follows a pattern: small footprint apartments with luxury amenities. This is great if you're a landlord, and you want to maximize the revenue of your property. But it's terrible if you're just looking for a safe, clean place to live, and you end up paying double the rent because luxury units are the only thing available.
Small, luxury apartments are going to be more profitable than something more affordable. Landlords will build the most affordable thing they can, to do anything else would be irrational. If only luxury apartments are being built, that means demand for such apartments hasn't been satisfied yet. The solution is to allow MUCH more building, so that something affordable will eventually be built. Even without that, having luxury apartments prevents the renters from competing on more affordable units, so it likely does have a positive impact.
I don't know anything about Berlin, but in San Francisco, there are plenty of affordable housing requirements placed on developers of new apartment buildings. This ends up just making new construction MUCH more expensive, as a single unit has to support itself as well as some fraction of an affordable unit. The result is that it's even less profitable to build new housing.
I don't agree that the free market is the only way to allow for more affordable housing, or even a good one. To some extent, housing has inflexible demand. If you work in a city, you need to find housing at least within commuting distance of that city. Because of this, landlords can build tiny palaces, and people will pay 50% of their income or more to live there, even if they really want affordable housing. In some sense, you could argue that real-estate developers can operate like a cartel and control the supply of affordable housing.
One clear alternative to this public housing. In Vienna, for example, about a quarter of the population lives in social housing. And these are poorly maintained slums, these are nice, well-located and affordable apartments. The city/state can optimize for the actual housing needs of the city rather than for profit.
I would argue that housing, much like healthcare, can function better when managed as a public good, as there are too many perverse incentives at play when there is a profit motive involved.
Encouraging businesses to move elsewhere seems like it should help reduce demand. Why not do some load balancing? There are other places that need more businesses.
People do rage internally about this. Unsurprisingly, a lot of current Google employees were early adopters of new Google features.