I don't really understand what the search nearby places button is doing. I think the solution would be to allow some sort of OR operator (which seems straightforward), or conditions the act on generic queries (which seems more difficult). For example say you live in NYC and want some nice green space near you. Choosing a single park is too narrow and choosing all parks is too broad. So you should be able to say e.g. "Central Park OR Prospect Park OR Brooklyn Bridge Park OR Fort Greene Park", or you should be able to say "Park, > 10 acres, 4+ star google rating, has tennis court, has bike path"... the point is that not all parks, grocery stores, coffee shops, etc are equal; I need to be able to qualify them somehow.

I missed this comment!

> Central Park OR Prospect Park OR Brooklyn Bridge Park OR Fort Greene Park

You can do this, actually. I kinda explain that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42976053

The heatmap supports both AND and OR clauses

The second one (acrage, stars, etc) is harder, you're right.

The "Search nearby places" is really meant to be a convenience feature to fill your OR clauses. It works better for certain types of things. Like, sure, all parks is too broad because not all parks are equal. But use it for something like all Targets (the shopping chain) or something, and its more useful, since those are, more or less, all equal.

I'm still thinking of other convenience features for places that have more nuance, like parks.

According to this data, traffic is reduced on the bridges and tunnels but not within Manhattan itself, e.g., going from Hell's Kitchen to Midtown East or Greenwich Village to Alphabet City.

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much.

2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers.

3. There are so many other simple policies that would benefit quality of life in NYC:

- Daylighting — Don't allow cars and trucks to park at the corners of intersections. Huge safety benefits.

- Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan.

- Close more streets to car traffic. This is already true on 14th street and it's fantastic. Close Houston, 34th, 42nd, 59th, 125th. This would make buses much more efficient and further discourage passenger car usage

> So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA.

I thought the point of the policy is to get people to use the train instead of cars, freeing up the roads for people that actually need it?

There are several points. Some want it to get people to not drive, but work from home or drive elsewhere instead is fine with them. Some want it to get more people on transit. Some want it to fund transit expansion. You can belong to more than one of the above groups. Nobody belongs to them all.

> Nobody belongs to them all.

Why not?

IMO, ideally:

- Some people work from home or drive elsewhere

- Others take transit instead of driving

- The remainder pay a fee that they didn't previously, which can fund more transit

I didn't give anywhere close to all the different interests here.

The first sentence they said was:

> 1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much.

I'm not saying that's correct or incorrect, but the person you replied to already considered what you brought up and responded to it. The primary "point" seems not to have worked, so the in-practice reason to keep the policy becomes other benefits, which for the city would include revenue being raised. (I guess you can argue it's not a "success" if the main point wasn't achieved, but good luck convincing the city to give up the additional revenue.)

> The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers.

Many of the entries in question are not tolled: the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Williamsburg/QBB are all toll-free, but are included in congestion pricing. Similarly, the street-level entries to the congestion zone were never tolled. I think the state's calculations probably conclude that these more than offset the drop in toll revenue.

(Or, more nuanced: much of the previous toll revenue went to PANYNJ, whereas congestion pricing funds go directly to the MTA/NYCT.)

This is the most econ-brained response possible. Why would the success of a public policy be exclusively defined by revenue generated?

Because it’s based on the assumption that congestion didn’t actually go down, see number 1 posted by op.

If you want congestion to go down, keep raising the price. It will eventually go down and revenue could go up a lot.

Or you get voted out of office and your charges reversed down to zero - or perhaps negative as the people are so mad they take it out on the transit this was supposed to fund.

Politics is tricky, don't take so much you make people affected mad enough to undo what you wanted.

Both parties like money so one party may be voted out if people are angry, but it’s unlikely to result in the charge going away.

It’s also nyc primarily in charge of it and nyc constituents probably are in favor of less congestion and more money.

Politicians like votes more than money. If this is seen as the standard change of hands that happens once in a while in a good democracy then the charge will stay because $$$. However if this is seen as a rejection of the charges they will go away to prove your vote for the new people wasn't wasted. Seen is the key here - while surveys and such influence this, there is emotion there as well. Note too that it only needs a small vocal percentage in some cases to change perception.

Big econ brained is thinking about whether the congestion pricing is approximately captures the negative externalities of traffic

First, it's not exclusively defined by revenue (which is what my first point was alluding to). Second, the underlying assumption of revenue generated is that it's going to the MTA and used to improve public transit and therefore quality of life in the city, which would be a success.

> Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan.

There isn't all that much free parking left in Manhattan south of 60th street.

Not saying it doesn't exist, there still are alternate side streets for sure, but it's a rapidly dwindling thing.

Agree that it should be almost nonexistent though for the most part.

Also the cost of metered parking in most of the city these days is similar to garage parking pricing.

Advocates did worry that reducing it from $15 to $9 would create a sort of "no-mans land" — not quite high enough to deter traffic but high enough to annoy people. I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone.

Most of the bridges and tunnels have their own tolls, with a few exceptions like the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. One possible explanation is that the advocates were right and the combined bridge/tunnel + congestion toll is enough to dissuade driving into the zone entirely for people arriving via bridge/tunnel, but the lower congestion toll on its own isn't as much of a deterrent if you have access to a free crossing into Manhattan from other boros or were already in Manhattan (outsize of the zone) to begin with.

It's a bit silly to set a fixed rate.

Here in Singapore, the congestion charging pioneer, we adjust the fee dynamically to keep traffic flowing.

> I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone.

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that either but it'll be interesting to see when more/better data comes available. Maybe car traffic getting to Manhattan is reduced but those people are using more taxis and Ubers to get around once they're in

You also have to factor in any reduction (or increase) in traffic fatalities and injuries. 34 traffic deaths and roughly 7500 injuries occurred in Manhattan in one of the nation's highest GDP-per-capita area, so the loss of economic output from these fatalities and injuries is likely fairly high.

Not to mention the costs of treating them.

Others have mentioned the unfairness of asking taxpayers to subsidize drivers. This is particularly egregious in Midtown Manhattan where many taxpayers are not drivers and many drivers are not (local) taxpayers.

But even as a driver I prefer when cities place an efficient price on parking. Otherwise, if parking is too cheap compared to demand it costs time and stress circling the block to find a place to park. Market pricing, where the city sets whatever prices are necessary to maintain an empty spot or two on each block, seems more fair, efficient, and pleasant.

Any examples of cities that have done a good job on this?

It's been ages since I've driven there, but SFpark[1] was (and maybe still is?) considered the gold standard in demand-based pricing.

One interesting finding from the initial research reports was that it achieved the goal of improving availability while at the same time lowering the average meter price, which is nice because it drives home that the purpose is maximizing efficiency, not revenue.

And despite my using it as an example above, Midtown Manhattan actually does this reasonably well, especially in contrast with trying to park in the Upper East/West Side or Harlem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFpark

Why should everyone pay equally, rather than people that currently store their private property for free on public land in some of the most expensive real estate in the country?

The point wasn't supposed to be to raise more money, it was to decrease the amount of people using the roads. Taxing more would, if anything, incentivize people to use those parking spots to "get their money's worth." More realistically, it would not add a barrier to actually parking on a day-to-day basis. Making you think about and reconsider it every time you go to do it with the paywall is what they want (and what is arguably necessary in order to fix the underlying problem, unless those tax dollars are going to go towards multi-level parking garages that add spaces and not just the existing roads).

No one likes decent and cheap public transport? I find that hard to believe. It's basically the common denominator for the best modern cities.

Motorcycles are definitely not the solution. Motorcycle usage in NYC has skyrocketed since 2020 and as a result the streets are far noisier, more chaotic, and more dangerous, especially for pedestrians and cyclists.

I take the bus in to work every day even though I have a car and the ability to WFH. I love the bus. I get to spend some time outside, walking to and from stops. Most days I just read a book or browse my phone for 40 minutes, and then magically I'm at work. Sometimes I get to chat with people on the bus or at the bus stop, though that's pretty rare, most people keep to themselves. I never have road rage. I never worry about parking. I never worry about people damaging my $XX,000 object. I almost never have to care about road construction, the bus just handles it for me. It's pretty neat!

> being in a pod with a hundred people you don't know and who have not been screened for insanity, excessive odor, sickness and general obnoxiousness.

These events do happen, but they're pretty rare. For the most part, people on the bus are just people, who happen to be on a bus. Just like there are crazy drivers, there are sometimes crazy bus passengers. At least the crazy bus passengers aren't piloting 4000 lbs of steel :)

Hi, nice to meet you! I prefer public transit because when I ride it I don't have to drive or find a parking spot! And I believe it to be safer on balance.

I prefer public transit! No parking, I dont feel nearly the same frustration, I dont have to make decisions, and at the end of the day I can be a little high on the train. Its bliss.

Chiming in to say I also prefer public transit. Why focus on the ride at all when I can just read a book and teleport?

And the real danger of motorcycles is to yourself. You could end up living with a feeding tube slipping in a shower let alone a minor scuff at 25mph.

Agreed. I love public transit. To get to work I can either take ~45 minutes by bus (during which time I read), or 25 minutes by car (during which time I can only loathe that I'm stuck contributing to traffic). That 20 minutes "lost" to drastically improve the other 25 minutes is well worth it.

You don't have to be the one driving...

Sure I could pay for a $40 uber one way at todays rates without vc subsidy. Or I can take a little longer riding the bus and only pay like $2.

I drove for years and was very happy to rid myself of my car and rely solely on SF's public transit and Uber/Lyft for when I need to go somewhere that isn't as readily accessible. Scooters and EBikes can't get me across the bay bridge anyway.

And SF's public transit is worse (both less useful and less comfortable) compared to NYC, many European cities, and any Japanese or Chinese megacity. I still find it perfectly fine, and preferable to dealing with a car.

Sounds like you don't live in New York, then? Most people here don't own a car and don't want to.

Well yea, two major advantages of public transit over driving is that it is safer and less expensive. So if you are going to discount people with those opinions, of course the people remaining are more likely to align with you.

Motorcyclists generally have some compassion for cyclists in that both share trouble with cars, and both have problems with staying upright. Multiple car drivers have tried to kill me in America; no such thing happened in 10 years in Pakistan, and I've had zero direct problems from motorcycles anywhere. Collision dangers aside—there's probably stats for that somewhere, probably poorly trained, drunk, or road raging folks sitting in cars are by far the main risk—the main problem of motorcycles would be the noise and air pollution from the engines, especially when there are too many of them in too small an area, versus having somewhere you can actually walk, think, and play (these differ not) without all that horrid noise and stench. In America, this is mostly limited to a few tourist island towns where there is only an ambulance and a service truck or two, and the cyclists on vacation are all like "wow, this is so nice! I don't get the Threat Of Death™ I usually do from the American stroad".

"Stroad" is a term invented, I believe, by those crazy folks over at "Strong Towns", who probably also have things to say about congestion pricing, and why it's taken so very bloody long to implement it in a supposedly modern and advanced nation.

I favor public transit, or ideally walking (problematic) or bicycling (even more problematic). Bicycling can be very problematic in America, to the point that a tourist from Florida in downtown Seattle once remarked "wow, the cars here aren't trying to kill me!" as we sat at some stinky car-strewn intersection. Basically you're a second class citizen if you walk or bicycle. Folks in cars will yell at you or throw things sometimes, and I have the correct skin color and sex, so it's strictly worse for others.

Buses? Sure, you can find the spicy runs with all the homeless (why are there so many homeless in America? Money out the ass and yet a nation so poor …), but I've had a lot more and a lot worse direct problems with folks who sit in cars, not counting indirect problems such as the noise, air, and real estate pollution (sometimes called "the high cost of free parking"). Usually the bus crazy will do something evil like offer you a joint, or wacky conversation, and will not do something upstanding like to change into the lane that you are bicycling in, forcing you off the road.

I wish my city had better public transit, so I could drive less. Driving sucks!

Have you even been to NYC?

On the other hand, touchscreen page turn has several UX disadvantages.

- You have to move the position of your thumb/hand for every page turn (to the screen, and back off of it). I disagree with "more energy required with the physical button"

- You have to obstruct text with your thumb/hand to turn the page

- It's very easy to accidentally turn the page by grazing the edge of the screen while you're reading

Why make two sizes and STILL make the smaller phone enormous? Apple is reportedly making the regular iPhone Pro larger as well. Baffling.

Vesting for each grant starts at one year and is monthly after that. So you're really only waiting one year for the first big chunk of stock to be liquid. 400k TC at Google means that you have 400k (pre-tax) liquid at the end of the year (depending on the stock price, which has historically gone up).

Where is vesting monthly versus quarterly or annual?

IIRC the vest schedule is 25% at one year and then 75% over the next three years in monthly installments.

I have heard of both monthly and quarterly. Monthly is obviously better, I am curious what companies vest the stock monthly.

With promotions, equity, and stock price growth (+220% over the last 5 years), probably closer to 2 or 2.5M of Google income.

Stock price growth isn't a huge distinguishing factor unless you're acknowledging that we're looking in hindsight and expect that he would have been one of the employees to leave those equity grants in GOOG shares and never touch them. Anyone can convert realized gains to Google stock (including the slightly better GOOGL shares instead of the GOOG shares most employees get from their RSUs), and the fees for converting unrealized gains to Google stock aren't enormous compared to a 26% annual return.

You're right it's not huge but (in hindsight) it's not negligible either. Because the vesting schedule is 4 years for each grant, the employees have no choice but to leave the shares in GOOG for 1-4 years.

That's not quite right in general. I had monthly vesting when I was there with a short cliff (I don't remember how short, but <<1yr). Shares appreciated according to the initial grant, regardless of cliffs. My previous comment glossed over the benefits/costs of borrowing against future earnings (note that typical RSU situations are effectively a 0% interest loan in a particular security), but that doesn't seem relevant to your rebuttal.

Each month of vesting you can absolutely move shares out of GOOG (minor restrictions on insider trading, but regardless of your level you can set up automated strategies), and most employees probably should given the correlated risk between Google taking a nosedive and employees losing their jobs.

The vesting is unrelated. With no promotions or raises the 4yr bump is uninteresting. With those, they match your TC, but they happen _during_ those interesting career events. They describe some subset of your compensation for the next 4yrs. You can still invest them however you choose. You can still leave at any time (unless you believe that in your personal case the promotion train is better than the job-hopping train). You could have just as easily job-hopped and invested the surplus in GOOG.

Pure change aversion from users.

This is a more sensible design. You can now read comments while you watch a video, which is clearly a more important use-case than browsing a bunch of recommended videos while you watch a video. The comments should scroll independently from the main column though.

For some people, the comments are the worst part of YouTube. I could see them being pretty vocal about not liking the design that makes them more visible.

I have the feeling these comments went from overwhelmingly hateful tu overwhelmingly praiseful. I don't know how they managed that transition. Moderation or culture change? They are useless either way.

Youtube comments used to be the worst comments on the net, but for a while now youtube comments have been decent. And no better or worse than reddit comments yet people go to reddit just to read the comments. I find myself often reading comments alongside youtube videos.

I agree with this redesign since it turns the right side of the video into a general social space: chat when it's a live video, comments when it's a normal video.

Related videos, on the other hand, are static and can be easily moved beneath the video.

Truly. I have an extension that blocks them ("Hide YouTube Comments, Live Chat, & Related"). Every so often I will unblock them for a certain video, but life is not better with them for the most part.

I can't remember ever once reading a youtube comment and being glad I did. They are certainly not valuable enough to take away video real estate.

I mostly only watch 'technical' videos like machining, 3D printing, electronics, etc. so sometimes I might think something's wrong or strange and appreciate validation from a commenter saying the same (or learn with them when someone replies in correction).

Or someone will chime in plausibly claiming experience/relevance to the thing discussed and provide some additional interesting information, in the same way we see in comments on HN.

There's a lot of crap too of course, but at least on content that's informational to begin with (not saying memes and music videos) there do exist good comments.

you can expand the video into "theater mode" and it will fill the window width. just as before.