It's an interesting paper, but there's no evidence it was ever used in HUD policy.
There's no content here.
Many of these (on state and interstate highways) are paid for by Sound Transit. It's more proper to say "Seattle area", but it's largely our tax dollars.
Maybe before the new 520? There are now continuous bus lanes for most of the 545's route.
I think you're confusing "algorithm" with "curation".
Recommenders and editors are both curators. My comment also doesn't recommend algorithmic curation, except in linking tribal members.
Curation for discovery has been the most difficult problem for information since access exploded with the internet. Netflix had prize money behind algorithmic improvement here. Public libraries and physical bookstores…
And allow more immigration, and streamline the immigration process to reduce costs for employers.
She would likely correctly identify restrictive zoning as the culprit, and recommend its elimination.
This does sound like a ridiculous law - it's possible that all they need to change is to allow people to harvest water if it's to be re-released on the same property.
It's an interesting paper, but there's no evidence it was ever used in HUD policy.
There's no content here.
Many of these (on state and interstate highways) are paid for by Sound Transit. It's more proper to say "Seattle area", but it's largely our tax dollars.
Maybe before the new 520? There are now continuous bus lanes for most of the 545's route.
I think you're confusing "algorithm" with "curation".
Recommenders and editors are both curators. My comment also doesn't recommend algorithmic curation, except in linking tribal members.
Curation for discovery has been the most difficult problem for information since access exploded with the internet. Netflix had prize money behind algorithmic improvement here. Public libraries and physical bookstores…
And allow more immigration, and streamline the immigration process to reduce costs for employers.
She would likely correctly identify restrictive zoning as the culprit, and recommend its elimination.
This does sound like a ridiculous law - it's possible that all they need to change is to allow people to harvest water if it's to be re-released on the same property.