In 2017 I wrote:

One of the major reasons existing residents often oppose adding more housing is that as more people move in it gets harder to find on-street parking. What if we added a new category of unit that didn't come with any rights to street parking?

My city (Somerville MA) included this in our 2019 zoning overhaul, but it does have some exceptions:

This policy exempts residents that may be 'choice limited', including:

• Persons with disabilities
• Occupants of affordable dwelling units
• Residents with extenuating circumstances

While this is a compassionate approach, it means we haven't fully disconnected housing construction from parking demand. For example, there's a proposal to build a 500-unit parking-ineligible building in Davis Sq (which would no longer be the end of the Burren). It's 25% affordable units, and opponents argue that if each has a driver this would be 125 additional cars competing for street parking. But would we really get that many?

A few years ago we got a similar parking-ineligible building in Union Sq, also a short walk from a subway station:

This is 450 units, of which 20% (90) are affordable. Ashish Shrestha submitted a records request to the city, and learned that only seven units have parking permits.

While the Davis project is a little bigger, this would suggest something in the range of 10 permits, much less than feared.

This makes sense: if you're in Union or Davis, with good public transit and bike options, living without a car is pretty practical. It also saves you a lot of money, especially for folks living in affordable units.

People are often pretty short-sighted, spending money today that they'll want tomorrow. Debt makes it possible to prioritize your current self even more highly: you can spend money you haven't even earned yet. This is a trap many people fall into, and one different communities have built social defenses against.

One of the more surprisingly successful approaches is the Financial Peace (Ramsey) system, popular in evangelical Christian communities. It has a series of rules, most prominently the seven baby steps:

A common source of friction within couples or between housemates is differing quality standards. Perhaps I hate the feeling of grit under my feet but my housemate who is responsible for sweeping doesn't mind it so much. If you do chores when you notice they need doing and stop when they seem done, this works poorly: the more fastidious get frustrated, and often stew in silence or nag. Even if it's talked about kindly and openly, doing a chore before it bothers you is harder and less satisfying.

When people set out to divide chores they're usually weighing duration and discomfort. These matter, but I think people should put more weight on the standards each person has, and generally try to give tasks to the person with the highest standards in that area.

We present and formally deprecate WoFBench, a novel test that compares the knowledge of Wings of Fire superfans to frontier AI models. The benchmark showed initial promise as a challenging evaluation, but unfortunately proved to be saturated on creation as AI models produced output that was, to the extent of our ability to score responses, statistically indistinguishable from entirely correct.

Benchmarks are important tools for tracking the rapid advancements in model capabilities, but they are struggling to keep up with LLM progress: frontier models now consistently achieve high scores on many popular benchmarks, raising questions about their continued ability to differentiate between models.

In response, we introduce WoFBench, an evaluation suite designed to test recall and knowledge synthesis in the domain of Tui T. Sutherland's Wings of Fire universe.

The superfans were identified via a careful search process, in which all members of the lead author's household were asked to complete a self-assessment of their knowledge of the Wings of Fire universe. The assessment consisted of a single question, with the text "do you think you know the Wings of Fire universe better than Gemini?" Two superfans were identified, who we keep anonymous to reduce the risk of panel poaching by competing benchmark efforts.

Six years ago, as covid-19 was rapidly spreading through the US, my sister was working as a medical resident. One day she was handed an N95 and told to "guard it with her life", because there weren't any more coming.

N95s are made from meltblown polypropylene, produced from plastic pellets manufactured in a small number of chemical plants. Two of these plants were operated by Braskem America in Marcus Hook PA and Neal WV. If there were infections on site, the whole operation would need to shut down, and the factories that turned their pellets into mask fabric would stall.

Companies everywhere were figuring out how to deal with this risk. The standard approach was staggering shifts, social distancing, temperature checks, and lots of handwashing. This reduced risk, but each shift change was an opportunity for someone to bring in an infection from the community.

Someone had the idea: what if we never left? About eighty people, across both plants, volunteered to move in. The plan was four weeks, twelve-hour shifts with air mattresses on the floor each night and seeing their families only through screens. With full isolation no one would be exposed, and they could keep the polypropylene flowing.

I think more people should be storing a substantial amount of food. It's not likely you'll need it, but as with reusable masks the cost is low enough I think it's usually worth it.

It's hard for me to really imagine living through a famine. The world as I have experienced it has been one of abundant calories, where people are generally more worried about getting too many than too few. Essentially no one dies in the US from food unavailability. Globally, however, it's different: each year millions die from hunger.