I love Svelte. When I first used it, it was like using a framework for the first time: Wow, everything is namespaced to the component, even CSS! Wow, just putting $ in front makes it update automatically! etc, etc
Somethings have definitely changed but I've accepted that maybe this is what is best needed for having some fewer amount of bugs/headaches about software while making it more performant and I sort of trust the svelte team in whatever version they lead us to!
Afterall, what is fun in webdev if not for creating factions and I am part of the lovely sveltelandia! Proud to be a member of it and I have full trust on the team.
This reverses causation. Investors are involved because prices are going up, not the other way around.
"Investors buying up housing" is a common explanation alongside "short term rentals taking over" but neither make up a large enough portion of the demand to explain prices.
In a feedback loop, every element in the loop is both a cause and an effect. The way to stop the feedback is to shift one or more relationships in the loop.
If you are lucky there can sometimes be arranged some convenient control elements- but in many difficult problems a lever that you can pull that only affects that one thing doesn't exist. You have choices of levers that affect a multitude of things, maybe many of which go counter to the desired independent effect
> the slow and unproven trickle-down effect of market-rate housing
Slow and unproven? Supply and demand is the most reliable law of economics. Cities like Austin that are building market rate housing are actively seeing affordability improve.
Furthermore, even if it wasn't sufficient, abundance YIMBYism would still be helpful and necessary.
I don’t have extensive experience on this yet, but I believe this is also a solved issue (using custom fonts). Serve the font-family from the same source as the website, preload only the primary font-style (say “normal”), and custom-pick the font to just the Latin subset. That should be fast enough that almost none will notice, except for the pedantic developers like us (personally, I can forgive that).
Henceforth, let the others (styles, variable, etc) kick in as needed.
You can also subset your fonts; e.g. if your content is in a language that uses the Latin alphabet, then you only need to include those characters in your font. Between that, variable fonts, and WOFF2, I've managed to get Inter down to 50kB (plus another 50 if you need real italics).
Partly, the answer is “tough”. As a designer, you don’t and aren’t meant to have pixel-level control over the screen contents. Web is not print. Don’t ask for the PostScript standard fourteen. (Somehow this lesson comes through much better for reflowable ebooks.)
Partly, I am willing to admit that web fonts are still nice when you can get them. But they’re too unwieldy to block on (slow connections exist; font foundries are assholes[1]; etc.), and we don’t really have a solution (the problem with FOUC is not the unstyled content, it’s the layout shift).
While I'm absolutely not a design-should-rule-all person, I think there's quite a range between "pixel-level control" and "you can't choose which font to use".
If we'd reliably have the top 50 google fonts on every OS, there'd be a lot less webfonts used.
system-ui
Glyphs are taken from the default user interface font
on a given platform. Because typographic traditions vary
widely across the world, this generic is provided for
typefaces that don't map cleanly into the other generics.
Yep the biggest problem with the ACA was that it doubled down on health insurance as a benefit of employment, when it should have taken steps to transition everyone off of employer provided plans.
With a small tweak it would have the opposite effect. Just mandate that employers must add what they previously paid in health insurance to people's salary. So it would look like significant pay raises to a substantial portion of the populace. I bet that would be popular.
I don't know if you would even need to mandate it. Stop mandating it, and start taxing all benefits as income, and you remove the biggest incentive for employers for pay for them.
That would suck for employees. They just effectively got an effective decrease in pay.
A switch from employer-pay to government-pay should be a no-op for employees with employer health insurance. But in a naive scheme, it isn't. The burden for paying for health insurance moves from the employer to the employee (through increased taxes). The employer benefits because they stop paying for health insurance, the employee pays the costs.
Voters, who are mostly employees, would hate it.
OTOH, an on-paper pay raise for employees that doesn't cost the employer anything? That'll be much more politically palatable. "Both your taxes and your salary go up 10%" is a lot more palatable than "Your taxes go up 10%".
