4465 stories
·
16 followers

I’m a Columbia Professor. The Protests on My Campus Are Not Justice.

1 Share
I do not believe that the Columbia demonstrators are driven by antisemitism, but their actions have gone way too far.
Read the whole story
mareino
3 hours ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

FTC Bans Worker Noncompete Clauses - The New York Times

1 Comment and 2 Shares
Read the whole story
mareino
4 hours ago
reply
Expect a lot of high salary workers to suddenly get a raise to $151,164
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
19 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Moldova Is a Cautionary Tale for Ukraine

1 Share
Moldova is a cautionary tale for Ukraine.
Read the whole story
mareino
1 day ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Lost Capitol Hill: Extending the Legacy

1 Comment

I recently helped a friend in the process of moving out of the long-time Capitol Hill home, and was given a book for my troubles. Entitled Extending the Legacy: Planning America’s Capital for the 21st Century, it was published some time in the 90s by the National Capital Planning Commission, and contains their plan for D.C. in the next century. Given that we are almost ¼ of the way through that century, it seems like a time to see how much we have followed the plan.

But first, to the book. No author is given, but the commission was chaired by Harvey B. Gantt, architect and former mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, and it is he who writes the introduction. It is a nicely illustrated coffee table type book.

The endpaper of the book already shows how far we have failed to achieve the plan set forth in it. Over a painted aerial view of the city flies an aircraft with the words “Intercontinental US Shuttle” on it. While this sort of vehicle has often been proposed, nothing even close has ever flown.

The main idea of the book is to extend the McMillan plan of 1901, in particular to bring it into accord with the original L’Enfant plan. This means extending the city along the three main axes of North, South, and East Capitol Streets.

For Capitol Hill, this would have meant replacing RFK stadium with “a memorial, an environmental center and housing and commercial development,” which, to be honest, may still happen–– though in all probability not in the sweeping way that is depicted therein.

The RFK site as reimagined by Extending the Legacy (NCPC)

One recurring theme throughout the book is the reinvigoration of the D.C. waterfront, and it is in this regard that the most progress has been made in the last 20+ years. While probably not driven by the decisions set forth in this book, the revitalization of the Navy Yard, the Wharf, and the Georgetown waterfront has been a noteworthy change in the city.

Included in this reimagining is a new Anacostia Waterfront at the foot of Massachusetts Avenue. In their plan, this would have included a number of highrises along the water and an aquarium on Kingman Island. The painting of this shows a huge glass globe with walkways surrounding it and tubes running through it. It is one of those ideas that looks interesting on paper but sounds like an utter nightmare to implement.

One of the biggest changes proposed has never came to pass: the removal of the Southeast/Southwest freeway. In the plan as set forth, this would have driven the revitalization of South Capitol Street, most importantly in becoming “a new gateway to the city.” Again, this has happened even without the grand changes proposed, what with the new Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge, Nats Park, and the many new buildings lining South Capitol.

In short, while some ideas have been taken up, it seems to me that, in the main, this project did not do much to actually drive the development of the city. It is, nonetheless, interesting to see how the city might change over the next years.

The post Lost Capitol Hill: Extending the Legacy appeared first on The Hill is Home.

Read the whole story
mareino
2 days ago
reply
Worth considering as the city plans its own Comprehensive Plan 2050, which unlike this one has legally binding effects
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

Why is Windows 11 so annoying?

3 Comments
The Microsoft logo on an orange background
Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

A couple of weeks ago, I ran out of screen on the one external monitor my work-issued MacBook Air can run. So I switched to my five-year-old Windows desktop and plugged in another monitor. Love it. Productivity through the roof. But it means that I’m finally spending significant time in Windows 11, and gosh, is it janky.

There are some things that Windows does very well compared to macOS and Linux. All the games are there, for one thing, and Windows runs on all sorts of hardware without a lot of fiddling. You do not have to spend a thousand dollars minimum on a non-upgradable machine to use it. You also generally do not have to download a bunch of drivers or spend six hours in the command line hand-assembling the goddamn operating...

Continue reading…

Read the whole story
mareino
2 days ago
reply
Brings back memories of how Windows had to jump from v8 to v10, because if they called it v9 it would confuse legacy apps that had a special Windows 95/98 Mode.
Washington, District of Columbia
freeAgent
2 days ago
reply
Windows 11 is truly awful. I don't know how MS believe they'll be able to maintain or regain marketshare (mostly from MacOS) with such an ad-filled, annoying OS and ecosystem. It seems that they don't really care anymore and are willing to just milk what they've got while relying on momentum to keep them competitive. We'll see how that strategy plays out.
Los Angeles, CA
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
LinuxGeek
2 days ago
reply
At least this article does more than just complain about the ensh-it-ification of Windows - at the bottom of the article is a link to one on how to clean up Windows 11.

Arizona Republicans again quash effort to repeal 1864 abortion ban

1 Comment and 2 Shares

PHOENIX — For the second time in two weeks, Arizona Republican lawmakers rejected an attempt to repeal a near-total ban on abortion from 1864 that was upheld by the battleground state’s Supreme Court.

The move to again block the Democratic-led effort came amid mounting pressure on state Republicans to repeal the ban, including from former President Donald Trump and Arizona GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake.

Still, Democratic lawmakers have faced an uphill climb in repealing the ban, as Arizona Republicans hold a narrow two-seat majority in both legislative chambers. On Wednesday, only one Republican joined state House Democrats in their effort to repeal the abortion ban.

Moments into the highly anticipated state House legislative session on Wednesday, Democrats introduced a bill to repeal the Civil War-era ban and filed a motion to Republican House leaders requesting an immediate vote.

Under Arizona House rules, a majority of the chamber must vote to suspend the rules to hold an immediate vote and that majority must include the House Speaker. Republican House Speaker Ben Toma has repeatedly expressed his opposition to repealing the ban.

The vote failed, prompting Democrats to move again to force a vote, which also fell short.

"The last thing we should be doing today is rushing a bill through the legislative process to repeal a law that has been enacted and reaffirmed by the Legislature several times," Toma said following the first vote to kill advancement of the ban.

"And I would ask everyone in this chamber to respect the fact that some of us believe that abortion is in fact the murder of children," he added.

Democratic Assistant House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos said that the chamber was simply "exercising its constitutional authority to adopt a temporary rule" for "us to take a vote on an incredibly important issue."

"This issue is very simple," he said. "Do we support or do we oppose an 1864 territorial abortion ban that includes no exceptions for rape and no exceptions for incest."

State Rep. Matt Gress, who previously told NBC News he was "very confident" a repeal bill would pass the state House Wednesday, was the lone Republican to join Democrats. Another Republican, Rep. David Cook, had signaled he supported a repeal, but told the Arizona Republic following the vote that suspending the chamber's rules wasn't the "right way" to do it.

The state House adjourned for a recess following the second vote. It remained unclear whether lawmakers would entertain further votes or debate regarding the ban later Wednesday.

The state Senate is scheduled to gavel in its own session later Wednesday afternoon. It remains possible that lawmakers in that chamber, where Republicans also hold a two-seat majority, could try to advance a bill to repeal the ban.

Wednesday's proceedings marked the latest chapter in the fight over abortion rights in the crucial battleground following the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling last week that allowed a Civil War-era law in Arizona to stand.

That law made abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs one or helps a woman obtain one. The law — which was codified in 1901 and again in 1913, after Arizona gained statehood — outlaws abortion from the moment of conception but includes an exception to save the woman’s life.

Following that ruling, Republicans across Arizona and the country called on state legislators to repeal the ban as the party has continued to deal with blowback on the issue of reproductive rights in the nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

The bombshell decision also added the swing state to the growing lists of places where abortion care is effectively banned — and set off an explosion of political activity. Democrats furiously undertook efforts to repeal the ban, while Republicans scrambled feverishly to offset the political fallout by discussing a series of possible contingencies.

Those options include pushing alternative ballot measures to compete with a proposed constitutional amendment to expand abortion rights in the state, according to a leaked strategy document circulated among Arizona Republicans obtained Monday by NBC News

The document made no mention of repealing the ban. Arizona House Republicans blocked an effort by Democrats during their session last Wednesday to repeal the ban.

There were no items on the state House's calendar on Wednesday that would allow lawmakers to debate those strategies on the chamber floor.

Wednesday's vote came in a packed chamber, while protesters on both sides of the abortion issue gathered outside the Capitol.

The post-Roe political landscape has put Republican lawmakers and candidates at every level of government on the defensive on where they stand on limiting abortion access.

Arizona has been no exception. Following last week's state Supreme Court's ruling, numerous Arizona Republicans who had previously celebrated the end of federal protections for the procedure sought political cover by distancing themselves from the decision, including Lake, as well as U.S. Reps. David Schweikert and Juan Ciscomani. All three face tough races this fall.

Despite the failed repeal efforts, voters are likely to have the power this November to decide on the future of the ban themselves.

Abortion rights groups in the state are likely to succeed in their goal of putting a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would create a “fundamental right” to receive abortion care up until fetal viability, or about the 24th week of pregnancy.

If voters approved the ballot measure, it would effectively undo the 1864 ban that now remains law in the state. It would bar the state from restricting abortion care in situations where the health or life of the pregnant person is at risk after the point of viability, according to the treating health care professional.

Read the whole story
mareino
6 days ago
reply
"On Wednesday, only one Republican joined state House Democrats in their effort to repeal the abortion ban."


Again: this is a law that puts rape VICTIMS in jail in order to protect the interests of the rapists. The cruelty is the point.
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
6 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories