yeah artifact caching is the obvious interpretation of caching when you're used to being compared to bazel, but the conversation was conflating "cache artifacts" and "cache should-run?" features.
I'm ignorant about the exact situation in Polars, but it seems like this is the same problem that web frameworks have to handle to enable registering arbitrary functions, and they generally do it with a FromRequest trait and macros that implement it for functions of up to N arguments. I'm curious if there are were attempts that failed for something like FromDataframe to enable at least |c: Col<i32>("a"), c2: Col<f64>("b")| {...}
(a) The final category can never be lower than the
highest hazard-based category;
(b) The TCSS should adequately reflect the case of
high potential risk of two or more hazards. We
consider a hazard of high risk when its respect-
ive category is classified as 3 or higher (equal
to the definition for a Major Hurricane on the
SSHWS). Whenever (at least) two high risk haz-
ards have the same category value and the third
hazard has a lower category value, the final
category should increment the highest hazard-
based category. This implies that a TC scoring a
Category 3 on both wind and storm surge, and
a Category 1 on rainfall, will be classified as a
Category 4.
(c) To warn the general public for an event with
multiple extreme hazards, a high-risk TC can be
classified as a Category 6 when either 1. at least
two of the hazard-based categories are of Cat-
egory 5; or 2. two categories are of Category 4,
and one of Category 5.
My understanding is that vacancy means available units for rent. So, plausibly, if you say 50 of the 100 units in your building aren't available for rent because you say they're being painted then they don't contribute to the vacancy of your building.
That's almost the exact opposite of your definition, but I agree that a 1.4% vacancy rate means there's almost nothing available for rent.
Yeah I know it's among the lowest in the world, it's still an ~order of magnitude higher than a few tenths of a percent, which would be shocking for the reasons you mention.
My point though was just that I've seen arguments that these numbers can be manipulated, and the city's own data doesn't make sense by itself: either the 1.4% number is wrong or the slowly recovering population estimate is wrong. Especially considering the 60,000 housing units (representing 2% growth) created.
Feb 2024 (last year there's data, I think) was a record low and it was 1.4% empty, according to NYC[1].
But I don't really know the methodology, and according to other nyc gov data it's surprising, since we still haven't recovered our population from COVID[2].
The first statistic (housing pressure) is based on population growth, but the NYC population statistics suggest still meaningful population loss since 2020.
I have seen articles in the past that suggest that apartment vacancy rates in NYC are self-reported and misleading at best, but I don't really understand how that would work and I can't find any sources on that now.
It's also my understanding that some classes of landlords can mark empty apartments as income losses, basically or partially making up for the loss of revenue in tax rebates. But that's also not something I understand well, just something I have seen asserted.
I recently wrote a similar tool focused more on optimizing the case of exploring millions or billions of objects when you know a few aspects of the path: https://github.com/quodlibetor/s3glob
It supports glob patterns like so, and will do smart filtering at every stage possible: */2025-0[45]-*/user*/*/object.txt
I haven't done real benchmarks, but it's parallel enough to hit s3 parallel request limits/file system open file limits when downloading.*
I have been chasing the gerrit code review high since I left a company that used it almost 5 years ago.
Stacked pull requests are usually what people point to to get this back, but this article points out that _just_ stacked pull requests don't handle it correctly. Specifically with github, you can't really see the differences in response to code review comments, you just get a new commit. Additionally, often github loses conversations on lines that have disappeared due to force pushes.
That said, I have a couple scripts that make it easier to to work with stacks of PRs (the git-*stack scripts in[1]) and a program git-instafix[2] that makes amending old commits less painful. I recently found ejoffe/spr[3] which seems like a tool that is similar to my scripts but much more pleasant for working with stacked PRs.
There's also spacedentist/spr[4] which gets _much_ closer to gerrit-style "treat each commit like a change and make it easier for people to review responses" with careful branch and commit management. Changes don't create new commits locally, they only create new commits in the PR that you're working on. It's, unfortunately, got many more rough edges than ejoffe/spr and is less maintained.