vedanta

Yep, Lineage is available on a 5X, Samsung S7, LG G5, etc.. Libhybris/Halium uses the driver parts of AOSP if I understand correctly, and Lineage uses ART in addition, they are all dependent on AOSP in some way currently atleast.

Google's project treble might make haliums' job a bit easier, so you might see halium on more devices than you'd think. Just speculating.

Yeah, it seems like mobile oses are about as common as Linux distros in 1995. Sailfish, Maru, lineage, among the two you mention. If you have a nexus 5 or one plus one, you're in luck.

I recently tried lineage, ubports and plasma, and though I liked ubports, lineage was a breath of fresh air. Selinux, opengapps, regular privacy notifications, twrp, and privacy and security seem to have not taken a back seat in general. Sign me up.

If there hadn't been contracts 10yrs ago, I probably would have gotten an openmoko. Wanted one badly. If lineage, ubports, and plasma among others can keep developing alternatives to stock android, no reason to see why at least some or all hardware doesn't follow. It's taken AMD the better part of 10 years to have open source drivers that are as good as their closed source drivers on almost all of their GPUs if I'm not mistaken.

You know, HN could use some of this /.-like humor.

I played around with a solar savings calculator a while back out of curiosity, there is an excel spreadsheet on an Australian website I believe that's pretty thorough, but it's not the only one.

In short, I don't think it pays to sell electricity back to any utility (they pay back 1/2 of what they charge you) and a battery system probably won't be worth it unless you truly want to stay off the grid. Get a system that's enough for your maximum daytime usage, that's the fastest way to break even, and spend the least amount of money. For such a system, given my local electricity rates, the break even point was ~15 yrs. a decade ago, and it's 7-8 years now. If you can find cheaper panels/inverter the break even can be ~6 years, after which you'll only be left with a much smaller electricity bill. It even makes sense to add panels later if your usage increases.

The way the break even time has been shortening is very exciting, more people will be able to afford it; and if you can, it's a no-brainer to do it sooner rather than wait.

Are they both not housing? Can I not renovate one into another over a few weeks? I give developers more credit. If they want to make money, they need to figure out what the market will bare. And it's not their fault if only enough housing is being allowed that they can get away with making luxury only housing. If more was allowed without BMR conditions, there would be a much less price difference between what you find at avalon vs craigslist. The difference is actually not that much, everything is just very high and unaffordable period. Hence the dilemma we're in.

I would say most bay area and CA cities pay their public sector employees rather well (with pensions). It's the artists, private-sector service employees, and other low-income jobs that are squeezed the most.

This would make sense if there was naturally 'cheap' housing and 'expensive' housing. There isn't. It's just housing. The fish analogy just doesn't work, we're talking about increasing supply of a durable good, not a natural resource. The only way is to make more. I'm sure tons of developers who don't bother playing the bay area would come back if cities lowered their BMR requirements. Leading to better designs, and more units. That plot of land that's designated mixed-use and has a gas station and a strip mall in the sunset isn't getting re-developed because developers know they'd have to do 25% BMR. With 0% BMR, that plot of land gets re-developed into 5-10 housing units. You're counting on prices being high-enough for redevelopment which is another self-fulfilling prophecy, instead of just building normal units. You can have 10% BMR and still get redevelopment quicker.

I would agree about the in-elasticity of the labor market, we're finding out right now. I see plenty of hiring signs around.

I don't think it's a scam. I would agree on rent control, but I think that has it's uses too in the current rental market.

Prop 13 affects all of CA, you don't see prices in LA going up 100% in 3-5 years like you do in most south bay cities.

BMR-renting makes sense at 25% or more. You can kick someone out in a yr. if they've started to earn more. You can rent at-cost, and not lose money like you would in a BMR sale.

Wouldn't you rather be using the loan/tax subsidy to house 10 people in rentals instead of 2 in a BMR condo? Asking for 25% BMR is holding back development and the marginal number of units built in each development. 10% is good compromise for service jobs (though service jobs do pay competitively in the bay area for the most part, teachers make 100k+, cops make 150k+). I'm not saying end BMR completely, just a compromise for which valid reasons exist, with the aim of hopefully someday eliminating it.

How long has SF had a BMR program? and rent control? I think they've both hurt more than help. Possibly even by design.

It's not about you or a company, once the market tolerates non-competes, employers will use them for any sort of a knowledge-based position. People will shift jobs less, wages will lower, followed by other economic effects of slightly lower wages.

It's the employees' choice, take a lifetime of lower earnings or not, everything else being the same.