I’m not sure it’s a waste. Yes, CSS layout is complex, bordering on stupidly complex. But I’m not aware of any other reflowable layout system of comparable power. The sheer amount of pain it takes to wrangle something like CSS floats out of TeX—on a fixed-size page!—certainly makes me appreciate just how difficult the problems CSS solves are.
Though it sure would be nice if people were exploring other approaches to reflowable layout without tying themselves to CSS and modern browsers’ codebases.
When you want to do something simple but you have to bring the entire philosophy of CSS into consideration to figure out what the right way to do it is.
Its a common misconception that CSS is easy, that's its not a programming language. Its however one of the most difficult to understand. You can write CSS a whole career without understanding the basics, and responsive design made it exponential harder. And there are popular anti-patterns such as trying to overwrite an existing css file... But if you do learn it - its very powerful, and much better then defining design rules in JS or XML or a graphical design tool.
Doing it in browser. Android, iOS, native macOS apps, QT, none of them have the insanity of layout that is CSS. I bet most other frameworks don't as well, but those are the 4 I'm familiar with. CSS is the odd man out when it comes to being utter shit at layout, and yes that is including flexbox and grid.
That you have to redo it all the time, as in kitchen remodels.
Blame it on folks outside of dev? I would ban the word “modern” if possible. Everyone thinks that it’s obvious but no one seems to be able to define it once and for all, lol
> Speaking from my perspective as a prolific FAANG interviewer
That's interesting, and somewhat rankling - as both times I interviewed at the G in FAANG, not a single interviewer gave a nickel about any of my experience, or projects I had worked on.
It's such a joke that the keys to a golden line on your resume and a giant salary are gated by the luck of which 7 people get picked to grill you that day, how busy they currently are, and what their pet question is.
Yea but moving as an individual is stressful and 10x moreso for families. We’re trying to keep people off the streets and from having to make bad decisions without hurting the landlords ability to capitalize on their investment. This is a compromise.
That’s it. That’s all this is. The law is just regulating shitty behavior. But you always have those who say “well I can legally raise blah and if I don’t less money.”
Well now they can’t. Good. We’ve made it slightly hard to be a major cunt.
It's interesting to compare what happened under rent control in medieval Europe. Under the feudal system, land rents were permanently fixed. They could never increase or decrease by any amount. This had the advantage that everyone knew what they were.
...sort of. What actually happened was that lords meddled with the size of units. The dues for a plot of land may be fixed at 3 bushels of grain, but if you can make the bushel bigger you can pass a rent increase anyway. So a major concern of European peasant movements was stable and uniform units.
What are you talking about... One of the nicest things about being a renter is being able to choose to live in a place where you can get those savings.
True, but if someone is already using it, it's shitty to increase the price that much. It makes it a bait-and-switch: offer for a reasonable price first, and once the family is all settled, jump a massive price increase on them. That's absolutely something that needs to be banned by law.
It's bad behaviour all right, but that doesn't automatically mean a law is the best fix.
Tenants could ask for contract terms that forbid such raises.
Or, if landlords are not forthcoming, they could take out insurance.
And yes, such insurance would need to have its terms written carefully. And it probably doesn't exist as a product at the moment. But eg sponsoring the development of such insurance would be an easier to justify action by the government than a law. Also less likely to backfire.
In any case, the underlying problem is lots of pent up demand for building, and permits only being given out in a trickle. If there was more building, landlords couldn't pull those tricks, at least not profitably.
To me, it's working against reality (and will have unintended consequences) if the price of rent is being held back from market price.
If I were a landlord, this just means that rather than charging a higher rent following renovations, I'd have to front load my raising of rent while they were being planned / ongoing. It might become more standard practice to raise rent closer to that limit proactively in the state.
Proponents might argue that's fine--at least it gives a family more time to adjust or move out. In practice, though, it may just make it easier for that family to weather through the first bump and be in an even worse situation when they absolutely can't afford it next time around. They might have been better off moving with more money available when a bigger hike comes later.
But hey, we've never known California to shy away from band-aid legislation.
I'm not sure what insurance is going to accomplish here. Tenants could negotiate it in the contract, but most people are not lawyers who will understand and negotiate the finer details on a contract.
The law is not automatically the best fix for all kinds of bad behaviour, and in many cases it clearly isn't, but I think this is one of those cases where it really is. Dramatically raising rent prices on someone who is already living there, is taking of a situation where the other party cannot simply refuse the offer, because moving every year gets really expensive quick. With many other kind of subscriptions, if the vendor suddenly doubles the price, they're easy to cancel. But not when it's the place where you live. It's taking advantage of a kind of vendor lock-in. A kind of monopolistic abuse.
And it's exactly the kind of thing that many countries do try to protect tenants from.
And no, the problem here is not pent up demand for building. That would be a likely cause when it's the initial rent for a new tenant that's too high. That's a sign there are simply not enough houses and too many potential tenants. But when the initial price is low, the landlord clearly does want to rent it to you. And when they then dramatically raise the rent, they're taking advantage of the power they have over your living situation. Preventing that by law is entirely reasonable.
Individual people would likely not negotiate themselves directly, because they are not lawyers. But they would take contract terms into account when comparing places to rent.
"700 USD per week" vs "800 USD per week and rent increases limited to 7% a year" are relatively straight forward things to compare.
You are right that landlords have a limited monopoly power when people have moved in. (And depending on market conditions tenants also have limited monopsony powers, because it's a bit of a hassle to find a new tenant.)
But those kind of longer term engagements are pretty common in the commercial world. And they are often solved with contracts.
What's keeping people from coming up with those terms themselves?
Note: I am not suggesting that landlords agree to those terms out of the goodness of their heart. They would offer such a ceiling on the increase eg in return for a higher starting rent. They are essentially selling a call option.
If they price the option premium right, they would make money. Just like any other kind of extended waranty you can buy.
This would be too heavily influenced by confounding factors.
For instance:
* Are the teams that use certain languages comprised of more experienced people?
* How mature is the company and project? I.e., a faster moving startup cutting more corners, where time was decided to be of the essence (rightly or wrongly) will likely produce more on call incidents than a slower, more established company that can takes its time
Additionally, the vast majority of startups I've worked for, and am aware of, will not file the paperwork to let you 83b. AND, if you bring it up, they will probably tell you politely they're not going to bring up your request to the board and go through all that hassle just to hire you.
That doesn't sound right. I thought an 83b election is always strongly encouraged, because the tax consequences are horrendous if you forget to file it. And I don't think the startup has to do anything? You just fill out the form and send it to the IRS.
