I assumed that if you were going to convert it to a regular park, you'd at least make some landscaping changes and additions that would bring it in line with other parks. For comparison, the upgrades to Parklane Park, which is 25 acres, cost $30 million.

I'm a little confused as to how that would work? You'd stop letting people golf on it, but you wouldn't make any other upgrades that would make it more attractive for non-golf uses? Even if you did that, you'd still have to pay for grounds maintenance (which is currently covered by golf.)

I should clarify that I think any pushback against the 70s greenway project (and a better path around the course, a la the Glendoveer one) are dumb.

But converting even a single one of these facilities would cost tens of millions at a time when Parks is cash-strapped, and at least in the case of golf remove a thing that is generating revenue. And it reduces the variety of types of things Parks can offer, whether that's golf or bike races at PIR.

I can't speak to the lead contamination issue, because I'm not familiar with that. But I guess that's where we have a philosophical difference. PIR is already there, and does have an appreciative audience. Same for the golf courses. If we were starting fresh from a blank slate, I might agree.

That seem high-ish? But then, PIR takes up 300 acres all on its own for, I'd argue, a more niche case. Now, if you expand the scope to the total acres of the park system (11,000, which includes a lot of natural area like Forest Park), it comes in at a much more modest 7 percent.

I suppose what we're talking about here is an issue of fairness. Are the resources given to the public courses unfair or disproportional? This is all very back of the envelope, but: the public courses take up around 800 acres. That's around 20 percent of the built acres of the park system.

To be clear: I'm not a golfer myself, so I have no dog in this fight. But I have no objection to golf as one parks amenity in the city's portfolio of them, particularly if it makes the sport accessible to people who could never afford to play at a country club. Which is most of us.

I don't disagree with the idea of better incorporating multiple uses—FWIW, Glendoveer already has a 2-mile nature trail that I've used (and is quite lovely.) That's laudable. But removing the courses, particularly when there's already other parks right there, feels like yucking someone else's yum.

I mean, I’d get it if it felt like we over-serviced golf at the expense of the parks more generally. But I feel like our number of public courses is reasonable for a city of our size, and our portfolio of parks in general is excellent.

Sincere question: what’s wrong with the public courses? They’re reasonably affordable and accessible, they generate revenue for the parks department, and they have other parks both nearby and adjacent to them (Rose City Park, Glenhaven, East Holliday Park, John Luby, the Glendoveer disc golf course)

I ABSOLUTELY could use MAME—I just 1) love to be able to support official releases, and 2) I'm lazy.

I'm THRILLED this is getting released, but as always my kingdom to get these games on Steam so I could play them more easily on my Vewlix.

I have zero mixed feelings about this. There's no excuse for a PBOT director lending her, the bureau's (or by extension, the city's) cachet to Saudi Arabia's whitewashing efforts—not when that same government has ensured that Fallon Smart's killer will never face justice. This is shameful.

It would appear my dreams of a playable Cruis'n USA may have finally come true.

This is a stellar review—thanks for going so in-depth, particularly on the overclocking, which sounds ... kind of wild in how successfully it seems to work.

This is very cool. Do you know the name of the building? I've long thought one of the blind spots of modern urbanist movement has been its lack of consideration for the needs of families, pushing those groups toward SFH. I'd love to see more things like this telling families that they, too, belong.