frontpage.
newsnewestaskshowjobs

Made with ♥ by @iamnishanth

Open Source @Github

fp.

LinkedIn Is Down

https://ctrlv.link/8aQX
2•palakd•1m ago•0 comments

How Big Tech Spearheads the US Threat to Canada

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2026/01/29/Big-Tech-Spearheads-US-Threat-Canada/
1•ireflect•1m ago•0 comments

Nvidia shares are down after report that its OpenAI investment stalled

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/02/nvidia-stock-price-openai-funding.html
1•greatgib•2m ago•0 comments

The Codex App

https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/2/introducing-the-codex-app/
1•tosh•2m ago•0 comments

It's 2026. Can LLMs Play Nethack Yet?

https://kenforthewin.github.io/blog/posts/nethack-agent/
1•kenforthewin•3m ago•0 comments

GitHub Incidents with Actions and Codespaces

1•jeduardo•3m ago•0 comments

Game of Trees Hub's web interface is live. And we need more subscribers

https://opencollective.com/gothub/updates/web-interface-is-now-enabled-and-we-need-more-subscribers
1•todsacerdoti•3m ago•0 comments

Trump says Republicans should 'nationalize' elections

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/02/02/trump-nationalize-elections-2026-midterms-00760015
2•throw0101a•4m ago•0 comments

AI's efficiency gains don't justify trillion-dollar valuations

https://www.chrbutler.com/replication-is-not-innovation
1•delaugust•4m ago•0 comments

On-Device LLMs: State of the Union, 2026

https://v-chandra.github.io/on-device-llms/
1•gmays•6m ago•0 comments

Scrcpy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrcpy
1•thunderbong•6m ago•0 comments

The Impact of AI in Business Analysis

https://www.scoopanalytics.com/blog/the-impact-of-ai-in-business-analysis
1•julesvane•7m ago•1 comments

Connect just-bash directly to data in S3 with Archil

https://archil.com/post/just-bash-support
1•huntaub•8m ago•0 comments

Welcome to the Room: A lesson in leadership by Satya Nadella

https://www.jsnover.com/blog/2026/02/01/welcome-to-the-room/
1•dnw•10m ago•0 comments

The State of Memory Leaks in GNU/Linux

https://techrights.org/n/2026/02/01/The_State_of_Memory_Leaks_in_GNU_Linux.shtml
1•speckx•12m ago•0 comments

The Push-Up Challenge

https://basicappleguy.com/basicappleblog/push-up-challenge-2026
2•frizlab•12m ago•0 comments

Show HN: Feistly – Cryptographically secure ID obfuscation with Feistel cipher

https://github.com/JunDev76/feistly
2•jundev76•15m ago•0 comments

The $125B Secret: Amazon Told Wall Street One Thing and Employees Another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sk3qmIQZnI
2•belter•15m ago•1 comments

Ask HN: Anyone else unemotional about AI coding?

1•softwaredoug•16m ago•1 comments

Don't discount American democracy's resilience

https://www.natesilver.net/p/dont-discount-american-democracys
6•neehao•17m ago•2 comments

What Is Diagnostic Analytics?

https://www.scoopanalytics.com/blog/what-is-diagnostic-analytics
1•robinellissc•20m ago•1 comments

Epstein Files Release Exposes Names of at Least 43 Victims, WSJ Review Finds

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/epstein-files-release-exposes-names-of-at-least-43-victims-wsj-re...
2•hn_acker•20m ago•1 comments

China Is Losing More Than Just Two Ports in Panama

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2026-01-30/china-is-losing-more-than-just-two-ports-in...
3•wslh•22m ago•1 comments

Anyone else spend 4 hours planning sprints that die in 2 days?

https://agilelie.com/tools/standup-tax
2•ghostinit•23m ago•2 comments

Serious games methodology to test solutions for regional food systems inequities

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016724001700
1•PaulHoule•24m ago•0 comments

The Monad Called Free

http://blog.sigfpe.com/2014/04/the-monad-called-free.html
1•romes•25m ago•0 comments

McKinsey and AWS Launch Amazon McKinsey Group

https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/new-at-mckinsey-blog/mckinsey-and-amazon-launch-amazon-mckinsey...
1•filleokus•25m ago•0 comments

Show HN: PocketPaw – Self-hosted AI agent controlled via Telegram

https://github.com/pocketpaw/pocketpaw
1•pocketpawai•27m ago•0 comments

Stelvio: Ship Python to AWS

https://github.com/stelviodev/stelvio
4•todsacerdoti•28m ago•0 comments

Transportation Department Plans to Use AI to Write Regulations

https://undark.org/2026/02/02/dept-transportation-ai-regulations/
3•EA-3167•29m ago•0 comments
Open in hackernews

Parking lots as economic drains

https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/stop-incentivizing-surface-parking
81•surprisetalk•1h ago

Comments

rimbo789•52m ago
Cars, and in particular, parking, kills cities. Parking is sponge that sucks all the life out of places.

The High Cost of Free Parking is an incredible book that shows exactly how awful parking has been for society.

okr•19m ago
Not in my city. Business is all dying, everyone avoids to go to the centre, everywhere the city fights cars, handy man charge extra just for comings, nah, it's basically gated communities now, well, they can have it, but life happens somewhere else then, where it can expand freely.
ErroneousBosh•15m ago
> Cars, and in particular, parking, kills cities. Parking is sponge that sucks all the life out of places.

What's your solution to it then?

fwip•46m ago
Related: there's currently a bill in the NYS legislature which would allow cities to switch partly to a land-value tax. This is a pretty good local article about it: https://centralcurrent.org/how-a-state-bill-with-support-fro...
bryanlarsen•41m ago
Parking minimums prevent developers from free-loading on a commons, that commons being street parking.

So eliminating parking minimums by themselves will create nasty side effects.

But of course the correct answer to tragedy of the commons is pricing -- price the street parking appropriately and it won't be abused so you won't need worse solutions like parking minimums.

twelvechairs•37m ago
Or just do what the Japanese do - remove unlimited (and overnight) on-street parking in urban areas and require anyone owning a car to prove they have a private parking spot to house it
newsclues•33m ago
But I have a bike and use public transit and don’t want parking driving up my cost of housing.
bryanlarsen•16m ago
You also don't want the streets you bike on to be clogged up with cars parking legally, parking illegally and circling the block continuously looking for parking.
jakelazaroff•10m ago
Right, which is why the actual solution is mixed use development and a robust public transit system.

Ultimately this is a geometry problem. Cars are by far the least space-efficient method of transporting people; eventually your roads just can't accommodate any more traffic. If there's enough demand to visit a given area then anything that doesn't minimize cars will just make things worse.

benced•31m ago
If a developer builds in a way such that the demand for street parking outstrips supply, the street parking still has a cost, that cost is just expressed in time to find a spot, not dollars like you're suggesting. People unwilling to pay that time cost will find paid lots or not have a car (which is basically the dynamic in my building: people either pay $450 a month for a spot or they spend 10-15 minutes looking for a free street spot).

In practice, of course, existing residents feel entitled to "their" street parking and get mad when a new building with new people contending for those spots is built but there's no logical reason to preference residents who have previously lived there. This is where politics rears its head though.

nickff•28m ago
I completely agree with your comment, but would also like to add that many cities have restricted or stopped permitting the construction of above-surface parkades, further distorting the market.
pavel_lishin•21m ago
> People unwilling to pay that time cost will find paid lots or not have a car

If we're talking about commercial properties and zones, people unwilling to pay that time cost just won't come to the area.

benced•16m ago
This is correct which will incentivize the constructions of private lots etc (assuming the people you mentioned value their time more than the $ those lots cost). I don't see any reason you can't trust markets to address the supply of a commodity product.
kec•26m ago
Even if on street parking were metered consistently and priced appropriately that's too divorced from the developer & their incentives to solve this. Parking after the building is sold is the definition of not the developer's problem, which is part of the reason we have parking regulations to begin with.

A better solution might be to mandate parking minimums (to ensure the property is actually useful / not encroaching on the street) but not allowing "open air" spots to count to the minimum, meaning an open lot gets you nothing, a 2 level garage counts for half the spots, etc. Maybe tack on some credits for proximity to public transit while we're at it.

ericmay•23m ago
Just a note - the parking minimums that are set themselves don’t necessarily correspond to the number of units built in the best way. So by artificially setting them you can windup with, as often seems the case, an oversupply of parking or in more rare cases an undersupply.

But in addition to pricing street parking more appropriately, and some cities are doing so, shifting the load on to the common spaces is kind of what you want to see as a transit user because if it continues to be set at a minimum you just wind up building more parking lots, highways, and cars. But if “the market” decides the market can actually signal to government entities that we do indeed need and want more options.

Like you actually want to see new apartments in urban cores built without parking garages. Theoretically (and perhaps in practice) these new developments should also be cheaper and less theoretically they give sidewalks and bus routes and tram routes more users and thus more funding and support. That then alleviates pressure on existing highways and everybody wins except the obnoxious highway lobby and the revolving door that it operates with existing state departments of highways.

spankalee•20m ago
Changing street parking prices is a lot easier than changing buildings built with previous parking requirements.

I'd say change the requirements first, then if there's a surge in street parking demand there will be natural pressure to raise prices.

jakelazaroff•19m ago
> Parking minimums prevent developers from free-loading on a commons, that commons being street parking.

Another way of looking at it: parking minimums require developers to encroach upon a commons, that commons being land that could otherwise be used for more productive things than free parking.

pclmulqdq•4m ago
It's not a commons if they buy the land.
grokgrok•8m ago
Distribute the currency appropriately so that pricing won't be abused.
advisedwang•36m ago
I enjoy the image [1] circling parking lots to show the land wasted right next to maybe 2x as much land consumed by a highway.

[1] https://substack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com/public/images/2...

1970-01-01•33m ago
Solar panels is the answer. It keeps the people dry in the rain and the power can go right back to the city. Yes, it's not possible for all lots. For a vast majority of them, it's a net win.
spankalee•16m ago
Solar panels do not solve the problem of parking lots being community dead zones. You can put solar panels on anything - it'd be better if it were housing, a store, a pub, etc. than a parking lot.
davidrhunt•31m ago
This is called out in the article as well but you're always welcome to join the party at https://parkingreform.org

It's a great group of advocates that are making impactful changes across the US and internationally.

imoverclocked•26m ago
This article goes too far and yet not far enough. By trying to build more buildings that increase parking in yet smaller footprints and then charge for the added expense of all of that, why not just eliminate cars in these districts altogether. Park outside of the city, walk/bike/scooter/mass-transit within the city. Now you aren't trying to extract value from the simple act of wanting to exist in a space leaving more value to core economic goods and services.

We need to attack The Modern Moloch (99pi).

okr•21m ago
It is not convenient. It's freezing cold and icy, no walk, no bike, no scooter. Use mass-transit, sure, when you don't care about your life, when it's working, when it's coming regularly, when i don't have to exchange stations, but still, walking from home to a station and back, nah, it all sucks.

Imagining sitting in a cosy, warm pod, driving in a tunnel autonomously, point to point, and you have my vote.

antisthenes•18m ago
That giant 5-level parking lot monstrocity could be a transport hub instead that has a warm metro stop, much better lighting and safety and perhaps even some light convenience retail.

> Imagining sitting in a cosy, warm pod, driving in a tunnel autonomously, point to point, and you have my vote.

They already have this. It's called a metro.

Spivak•15m ago
I mean that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it. All the downsides of a car with all the downsides of a bus.

The solution, which has done in my city to genuinely smashing success is to nationalize the parking garages meaning government builds them, maintains them, and they're free forever. Dot them around a dense mixed use area and quite literally watch the money pour in. Everything is within grandpa walking distance of at least one garage, they're specced to over capacity so each one is never full, and it provides parking to the workers and apartments.

ipdashc•10m ago
> that's "Park and Ride" which already exists but the problem is that people, kinda rightfully, hate it

... do people hate park and rides? Where I'm from (suburbs outside a US city) it's completely standard to park outside the city (in a garage or big lot at a train station) and take the train in. I find it quite comfortable personally.

It sounds like yours is specifically for buses, but I think it's that people generally don't like buses, they're slow and uncomfortable. The park and ride is fine when you can walk from it to a subway/train.

Spivak•2m ago
Parking at a train station or even a subway entrance sounds like heaven compared to ours which is a surface lot with a bus stop. But I'm not sure if "just have a subway or train network" is going to work for cities like Syracuse that don't already have them.
Lammy•14m ago
> Park outside of the city, walk/bike/scooter/mass-transit within

Very telling how these arguments are always the most ableist shit you've ever heard and yet people seem to think they're Very Progressive for making them.

doubletwoyou•8m ago
Cars suck for anybody who doesn’t have all of their faculties in order. Broke a leg, trains were my saviour.
the_snooze•6m ago
It's not a bad thing to make places more accessible to children and senior citizens who can't (or shouldn't) be driving.
drewg123•10m ago
In a large metro with an extant, functional, mass transit system, sure. But do this in a cold place with no existing mass transit, and all you'll do is kill off downtown businesses and reduce property values to 0.

This experiment was kind of done in Buffalo in the 70s. They blocked off large swathes of downtown to build the above ground section of metro rail. This encouraged business to close downtown locations and move to suburban malls. That kind of retail never came back to downtown in the roughly 1 decade after completion of the metro. So you had a mass transit system that went effectively from nowhere to nowhere, and managed to kill the downtown retail corridor.

Ekaros•10m ago
I think someone should try banning absolutely everything but emergency vehicles. No cars, no taxis, no vans, no trucks. Only cargo bikes, hand carts and maybe palanquins. Add some sort of uber type platform where you can hire someone to push wheelchair around. Limit speeds of mopeds and bicycles to say 10 or 15 km/h for pedestrian safety. This should make extremely liveable city if those promoting these things are right.
CalRobert•4m ago
There's this - bloommerwede.nl - it looks awesome.
Ekaros•1m ago
Look like there is still at least two bridges to block entirely. I think you could maybe build some sort of permanent market place on them.
qq66•11m ago
Maybe surface parking lots aren't the answer, but I do know that if there are places that I can't easily park at, I just don't go there unless absolutely necessary.

Nice to think, "the people will take trains!" but sometimes it doesn't work that way.

CalRobert•6m ago
You might not go there, but the people who live in the homes you build where the parking garage used to be will go there.
qq66•2m ago
Sure, removing parking essentially requires the neighborhood to become more self-sustaining. This works in really dense cities like New York and San Francisco but it requires enough desirability to fill the housing with people who have enough disposable income to replace the far bigger "catchment area" that the parking used to serve.

Which in turn affects the kind of economies that the new development can support. A car dealership? Needs parking and a large catchment area. Burrito shop? Probably not getting much destination traffic and can support itself on locals.

jessecurry•7m ago
This is such a terrifying vision of the proper scope of government. We shouldn't use government to hurt people, and making someone's property too expensive to continue owning is definitely hurting them.

If you're really concerned with surface parking push the government to stop making it so expensive for companies to develop self-driving technology or to offer transportation services. If it's easier and less expensive for individuals to use transportation that they don't need to park anywhere the need for surface lots vanishes and those owning the property will look for something else to do with it.

Ajedi32•5m ago
Parking maximums would be just as stupid as parking minimums. Instead of oversupply with inefficient use of space you'll get under supply with businesses starved of customers who can't find a convenient parking space.

Let the market decide how much parking is needed. It'll do a much better job than you ever could.

ramblurr•4m ago
Nary a mention of parking garages / underground parking?

Austrian cities have way more parking than one would expect, but it's nearly all underground and costs €

The benefits are huge, you have have dense commerical areas where you drive in, park underground, pay for some hours, then walk between the shops to do all your business.

bluGill•2m ago
If you don't like parking you need to start with cars: give people a reasonable alternative. Too many are looking at this from a standpoint of "lets just get rid of parking" - without asking what people will do instead. All too often the answer is they will drive someplace in the suburbs instead where they get free parking.

If you want your downtowns to not have parking you need an alternative. In most cases that means you need to improve your transit in the entire city so people can get there.

pclmulqdq•40s ago
Many cities that have a dense core will have big municipal lots and garages to enable people to park somewhere they can walk from. Of course, the first thing urbanists go after is the presence of these lots in "high-value" real estate.
clickety_clack•2m ago
I lived in Vancouver for years, near the downtown, near the SkyTrain and it was amazing. Back then I thought I would never live anywhere but the downtown of a city.

But, you know what, life changes. I know there’s hardcore folks out there who will cycle miles with their kids, or take them on transit, or even live with them in a 2 bedroom downtown apartment, but it is just too hard to live that way for many people. With a family, most people need more space, and they need to be able to get from their suburban home to some kind of shopping or work, in minimum time so that they can both take care of kids, maintain a career, and have a glimpse of a life for themselves.

We don’t need to have surface lots right in the middle of every downtown, but there needs to be somewhere for people to park.

dbvn•2m ago
"That is, how much value a parcel creates for the community compared to how much value it consumes simply by existing as land. Think of it like this:

Net Contribution=(Economic Output in $)−(Land Value in $)"

This calculation is shady. Land value fluctuates and already "bakes in" the predicted economic output... but multiplied across decades. Not to mention, land doesn't consume value by existing. the value never goes anywhere. Its opportunity cost, not a decrease in actual value.

Yes, there is value "missed out on", but it hasn't been destroyed. Because it never existed. And that value wouldn't have appeared out of nowhere. it would've required using up other resources that the parking lot wasn't.

legitster•1m ago
I cannot recommend this Road Guy Rob video enough: https://youtu.be/K1TFOK4_07s?si=IwCK4sxVgw5Konu4

TL;DW: The difference in tax revenue between a surface parking lot and a business with subterranean parking is so vast, that cities can justify using value to underwrite the loans necessary for developers to do the work. (Called "Tax Increment Financing") This model is proving extremely successful with cities that try taking it on.

trgn•32s ago
i live in one of these cities and it's impossible to explain.