Using layers with settings about which SDFs interact with which layers for operations seems interesting. Like put trees in a layer and then have an axe that can negatively deform the trees but not the ground layer or something. Or a predator layer that can absorb things in the prey layer. Haven't really thought through.

Just build more housing, the whole "let's make rules to avoid the easy and obvious solution" trend annoys me.

Utilizing vacant properties is easier and cheaper than building new ones, by a massive margin. We should do both, but ignoring perfectly good homes in desirable locations being used by nobody is silly.

If the goal is to reduce the number of vacant homes, then why not create a tax on those specifically. Corporate owned homes and vacant homes are not the same thing at all.

I mean converting vacant is fine, to me it's the same category basically - increasing housing supply.

I think people really underestimate how nice it is for the lenses to be smaller and not just for the camera to be.

I wonder if there's a marketing reason for not shrinking the lenses. A big lens screams "better" more than a smaller lens at a casual glance for the uninitiated user.

It's an engineering reason really, the entire reason why MFTs were so popular when they came out was because people were tired of lugging around their Full-Frame camera's zoom lens, and were sick of missing moments when using a prime lens.

The marketing gimmick for awhile was ultra-zooms which allow for smaller lenses via fixing distortion using DSP, but this degrades the image quality, and so never became a solution for RAW shooters.

I think it's directly related to sensor size and given the shape of lenses (cylinders) that means bigger sensors should probably have a non linear relationship to lens size.Though it is probably not quite that simple. In any case, bigger lenses allow for smaller f stops with a given focal length, and people really do love bokeh...

I doubt it. I don’t think anyone is spending $2k on Canon L-series (red ring) lenses based on the size. On the high end, photographers are pretty discerning about equipment’s capabilities. If they made my Canon EF 35mm f1.4L USM II half the size and weight I’d be thrilled.

The RF version of that lens is a bit lighter.

Bigger lenses tend to gather more light and that means better images in darker moments.

I have a GX-8 and I still like it...

That was my first guess TBH. Mostly because it seems like the kind of thing scientists writing Python would do.

Maybe they should read that article (that was on HN) from the other day and switch to using account numbers with no customer information since that'd be about the same difference anyway given this behavior.

I agree errors should be errors. Many things that are logged for other reasons should use a different label.

That said, the thing I've cone find being useful as a subcategory of error are errors due to data problems vs errors due to other issues.

If you look at HN who is hiring threads sometimes the same companies post every time for very extended periods of time. And I've applied at some of them to never hear back. IMO they're just fishing for people who have specific profiles that they don't disclose in the job description, not actually hiring.

So I sort of agree that there's a narrower version of employment that we should care about more than the top-line number. I'd define as maybe "households with at least one dependent under 20 and ~hours worked by household members." I would then break that down into several groups: fine (have healthcare, make enough to cover typical costs for their area, household works < 55 hours/week/adult, and can save 15% for retirement on a household basis), the struggling (make less than this, but work, or work > 55 hours/week/adult, but can cover housing and most basic expenses), and the hopeless (income too low to cover basic costs or not employed). IE If someone is working 60/hrs a week @ $10/hr, and has a kid, maybe not "unemployed" but IMO categorically, almost the same. Same thing if they just do gig work to net $20k/yr. Or are actually unemployed.

All that said, the main issue with the health insurance metric is that it would end up being a forcing function for the continued coupling of work and healthcare, which is bad and toxic.

Why not engineers? I've definitely never had a harder time getting interviews, though obviously anecdotal. Or do you just mean that the scope is larger than software eng?

Many of my engineering friends happen to work in defense (I'm friends with a lot of aerospace engineers from college) and are now highly specialized engineers on stable and long term projects and happen to be at the forefront of innovation in that space and all have high level security clearances (for some of them I don't really know what they do since it's classified). Though it also could be they just have gotten lucky. My friends I made from hobbies work random and less highly technical jobs and I know a decent amount of people "in between jobs" right now. It's all anecdotal but there's a clear enough pattern that if the chair of the Fed also thinks we're underestimating I think it's very likely we are.

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't clear on how to interpret!

i think they meant that the people they know having trouble finding jobs are not engineers