Sean Klein
@smklein.bsky.social
I build some things, break others, and always stop to pet the dogs
Engineer living and running in SE PDX
Engineer living and running in SE PDX
go pet your dogs and give them extra treats. they're never with us for as long as they should be
November 14, 2025 at 7:37 PM
go pet your dogs and give them extra treats. they're never with us for as long as they should be
This seems to be my takeaway from the council meeting you posted -- we'll see in the next few years?
November 11, 2025 at 11:22 PM
This seems to be my takeaway from the council meeting you posted -- we'll see in the next few years?
I wish portland mercury or willamette week had a review of some of these grants and programs.
There are hundreds of millions of dollars going to grants / programs - but I'm only seeing "plans" + "$ granted", and not "evaluation of whether or not this worked"
There are hundreds of millions of dollars going to grants / programs - but I'm only seeing "plans" + "$ granted", and not "evaluation of whether or not this worked"
November 11, 2025 at 9:38 PM
I wish portland mercury or willamette week had a review of some of these grants and programs.
There are hundreds of millions of dollars going to grants / programs - but I'm only seeing "plans" + "$ granted", and not "evaluation of whether or not this worked"
There are hundreds of millions of dollars going to grants / programs - but I'm only seeing "plans" + "$ granted", and not "evaluation of whether or not this worked"
I've also found www.portland.gov/bps/cleanene... which gives a little more detail to individual programs, and www.portlandmaps.com/bps/pcef-gra... for a history of some grants.
The Climate Investment Plan's Strategic Programs
The Strategic Programs in the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) Climate Investment Plan will be developed on different schedules. Learn more about these programs, including eligibil...
www.portland.gov
November 11, 2025 at 9:38 PM
I've also found www.portland.gov/bps/cleanene... which gives a little more detail to individual programs, and www.portlandmaps.com/bps/pcef-gra... for a history of some grants.
I found www.portland.gov/bps/cleanene... ; definitely want to dig into it a bit.
I think my dissonance comes from the feeling of (1) it's a lot of money, and (2) I'm not visibly seeing the impacts, I don't think? But that doesn't mean they aren't happening. I just want to know what's happening
I think my dissonance comes from the feeling of (1) it's a lot of money, and (2) I'm not visibly seeing the impacts, I don't think? But that doesn't mean they aren't happening. I just want to know what's happening
November 11, 2025 at 8:39 PM
I found www.portland.gov/bps/cleanene... ; definitely want to dig into it a bit.
I think my dissonance comes from the feeling of (1) it's a lot of money, and (2) I'm not visibly seeing the impacts, I don't think? But that doesn't mean they aren't happening. I just want to know what's happening
I think my dissonance comes from the feeling of (1) it's a lot of money, and (2) I'm not visibly seeing the impacts, I don't think? But that doesn't mean they aren't happening. I just want to know what's happening
I ask that completely genuinely! I want to know! That's a lot of money, if it IS working, great, would love for Portland to be at the forefront of such a program.
If it's not - where is the money going, and why is it constantly being treated like a cash cow from other departments??
If it's not - where is the money going, and why is it constantly being treated like a cash cow from other departments??
November 11, 2025 at 8:37 PM
I ask that completely genuinely! I want to know! That's a lot of money, if it IS working, great, would love for Portland to be at the forefront of such a program.
If it's not - where is the money going, and why is it constantly being treated like a cash cow from other departments??
If it's not - where is the money going, and why is it constantly being treated like a cash cow from other departments??
100% independently of the "should it go to police" question (answer: no) - is the PCEF, like, working? It's existed for like 7 years, has a budget of nearly $2 billion dollars, and the purpose is to reduce carbon emissions and improve economic opportunities advancing racial justice.
Is it working?
Is it working?
November 11, 2025 at 8:37 PM
100% independently of the "should it go to police" question (answer: no) - is the PCEF, like, working? It's existed for like 7 years, has a budget of nearly $2 billion dollars, and the purpose is to reduce carbon emissions and improve economic opportunities advancing racial justice.
Is it working?
Is it working?
It seems misleading to have the PCEF exist as a fund with an enormous amount of money, but which could be redirected to other departments???
Whether or not PCEF should exist is one question (already decided by 26-201!) but it's weird that it also exists as a weird indirection fund
Whether or not PCEF should exist is one question (already decided by 26-201!) but it's weird that it also exists as a weird indirection fund
November 11, 2025 at 8:29 PM
It seems misleading to have the PCEF exist as a fund with an enormous amount of money, but which could be redirected to other departments???
Whether or not PCEF should exist is one question (already decided by 26-201!) but it's weird that it also exists as a weird indirection fund
Whether or not PCEF should exist is one question (already decided by 26-201!) but it's weird that it also exists as a weird indirection fund
This is older news, but see also:
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- Proposal to raise PCEF tax further...
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- ... another proposal to use it for things which are NOT clean energy funding
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- Proposal to raise PCEF tax further...
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- ... another proposal to use it for things which are NOT clean energy funding
3 Portland councilors propose PCEF tax hike to backfill city budget
Raising the Portland Clean Energy Fund tax could generate $60 million for non-climate programs.
www.opb.org
November 11, 2025 at 8:29 PM
This is older news, but see also:
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- Proposal to raise PCEF tax further...
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- ... another proposal to use it for things which are NOT clean energy funding
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- Proposal to raise PCEF tax further...
- www.opb.org/article/2025... <- ... another proposal to use it for things which are NOT clean energy funding
Felt similarly about the parks tax increase. I ended up voting for it, with many qualms about maintenance and whether it'll be sustainable in the limit...
... But that space of "I want these programs to help Portland, I just want to ensure they're working efficiently" is hard to discuss.
... But that space of "I want these programs to help Portland, I just want to ensure they're working efficiently" is hard to discuss.
November 11, 2025 at 7:47 PM
Felt similarly about the parks tax increase. I ended up voting for it, with many qualms about maintenance and whether it'll be sustainable in the limit...
... But that space of "I want these programs to help Portland, I just want to ensure they're working efficiently" is hard to discuss.
... But that space of "I want these programs to help Portland, I just want to ensure they're working efficiently" is hard to discuss.
One of the most frustrating parts to me about them is that they make it impossible to have any nuanced discussion.
(E.g., in the context of street sweeps, there really is SOME amount we need to do - see, the ADA lawsuit - but it's more complex than a "yes/no" issue)
(E.g., in the context of street sweeps, there really is SOME amount we need to do - see, the ADA lawsuit - but it's more complex than a "yes/no" issue)
November 11, 2025 at 7:44 PM
One of the most frustrating parts to me about them is that they make it impossible to have any nuanced discussion.
(E.g., in the context of street sweeps, there really is SOME amount we need to do - see, the ADA lawsuit - but it's more complex than a "yes/no" issue)
(E.g., in the context of street sweeps, there really is SOME amount we need to do - see, the ADA lawsuit - but it's more complex than a "yes/no" issue)
Do you know why - if this is to maintain current quality - it's a 75% increase compared to the prior levy?
I've heard an argument of inflation, but the tax is pegged to a valuation of dollar-per-$1000 of property value, which should also be increasing with inflation.
I've heard an argument of inflation, but the tax is pegged to a valuation of dollar-per-$1000 of property value, which should also be increasing with inflation.
November 5, 2025 at 12:41 AM
Do you know why - if this is to maintain current quality - it's a 75% increase compared to the prior levy?
I've heard an argument of inflation, but the tax is pegged to a valuation of dollar-per-$1000 of property value, which should also be increasing with inflation.
I've heard an argument of inflation, but the tax is pegged to a valuation of dollar-per-$1000 of property value, which should also be increasing with inflation.
I think the part which confuses me the most is that maintenance seems critical, but it's only a drop in the bucket of the new levy?
The auditors report claimed that our SDC-incentivized funding opened parks faster than we could repair old ones, but it's not clear fixing that is the priority
The auditors report claimed that our SDC-incentivized funding opened parks faster than we could repair old ones, but it's not clear fixing that is the priority
November 5, 2025 at 12:27 AM
I think the part which confuses me the most is that maintenance seems critical, but it's only a drop in the bucket of the new levy?
The auditors report claimed that our SDC-incentivized funding opened parks faster than we could repair old ones, but it's not clear fixing that is the priority
The auditors report claimed that our SDC-incentivized funding opened parks faster than we could repair old ones, but it's not clear fixing that is the priority
I wish there was a levy more specifically dedicated to maintenance of parks that already exist. Feeling a bit frustrated that there is no option for this, as far as I can tell?
(Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but I'm really only using the audit/OPB as sources)
(Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but I'm really only using the audit/OPB as sources)
November 5, 2025 at 12:02 AM
I wish there was a levy more specifically dedicated to maintenance of parks that already exist. Feeling a bit frustrated that there is no option for this, as far as I can tell?
(Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but I'm really only using the audit/OPB as sources)
(Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but I'm really only using the audit/OPB as sources)
$2 million != $550 million
Seems like a "yes" vote raises taxes and rent, but the parks will not be able to receive maintenance, while a "no" vote will prevent new parks from opening and lay off a massive portion of the parks department.
Both options seem bad 😞
Seems like a "yes" vote raises taxes and rent, but the parks will not be able to receive maintenance, while a "no" vote will prevent new parks from opening and lay off a massive portion of the parks department.
Both options seem bad 😞
November 5, 2025 at 12:01 AM
$2 million != $550 million
Seems like a "yes" vote raises taxes and rent, but the parks will not be able to receive maintenance, while a "no" vote will prevent new parks from opening and lay off a massive portion of the parks department.
Both options seem bad 😞
Seems like a "yes" vote raises taxes and rent, but the parks will not be able to receive maintenance, while a "no" vote will prevent new parks from opening and lay off a massive portion of the parks department.
Both options seem bad 😞
Levy:
- "The new measure would also make a dent in the maintenance backlog by ensuring that roughly 2% of levy revenue goes to maintenance costs. That would raise about $2 million annually."
www.opb.org/article/2025...
- "The new measure would also make a dent in the maintenance backlog by ensuring that roughly 2% of levy revenue goes to maintenance costs. That would raise about $2 million annually."
www.opb.org/article/2025...
November 5, 2025 at 12:01 AM
Levy:
- "The new measure would also make a dent in the maintenance backlog by ensuring that roughly 2% of levy revenue goes to maintenance costs. That would raise about $2 million annually."
www.opb.org/article/2025...
- "The new measure would also make a dent in the maintenance backlog by ensuring that roughly 2% of levy revenue goes to maintenance costs. That would raise about $2 million annually."
www.opb.org/article/2025...
Cost:
- "Parks estimates it would cost between $550 million and $800 million to restore assets to a reasonable level of wear-and-tear."
- "Parks estimates it would cost between $550 million and $800 million to restore assets to a reasonable level of wear-and-tear."
November 5, 2025 at 12:01 AM
Cost:
- "Parks estimates it would cost between $550 million and $800 million to restore assets to a reasonable level of wear-and-tear."
- "Parks estimates it would cost between $550 million and $800 million to restore assets to a reasonable level of wear-and-tear."
Here is an example that's much closer to the actual bug we saw:
play.rust-lang.org?version=stab...
Note that in this case:
- There are no mutexes.
- The whole issue arises from 'send_fut' being a future that we start (and then stop!) polling.
play.rust-lang.org?version=stab...
Note that in this case:
- There are no mutexes.
- The whole issue arises from 'send_fut' being a future that we start (and then stop!) polling.
Rust Playground
A browser interface to the Rust compiler to experiment with the language
play.rust-lang.org
November 1, 2025 at 5:25 PM
Here is an example that's much closer to the actual bug we saw:
play.rust-lang.org?version=stab...
Note that in this case:
- There are no mutexes.
- The whole issue arises from 'send_fut' being a future that we start (and then stop!) polling.
play.rust-lang.org?version=stab...
Note that in this case:
- There are no mutexes.
- The whole issue arises from 'send_fut' being a future that we start (and then stop!) polling.
Just to be clear, this futurelock issue can happen without the involvement of any async mutexes.
The issue here isn't primarily that an async mutex is held across an await point (though that is an anti-pattern!) but, it's mainly that an unpolled, uncancelled future has a way to block a task.
The issue here isn't primarily that an async mutex is held across an await point (though that is an anti-pattern!) but, it's mainly that an unpolled, uncancelled future has a way to block a task.
November 1, 2025 at 12:04 AM
Just to be clear, this futurelock issue can happen without the involvement of any async mutexes.
The issue here isn't primarily that an async mutex is held across an await point (though that is an anti-pattern!) but, it's mainly that an unpolled, uncancelled future has a way to block a task.
The issue here isn't primarily that an async mutex is held across an await point (though that is an anti-pattern!) but, it's mainly that an unpolled, uncancelled future has a way to block a task.
Reposted by Sean Klein
Funny how thousands upon thousands of people can march through war torn Portland with absolutely no violence but some how anyone getting near a federal agent gets shot in the face.
October 18, 2025 at 10:51 PM
Funny how thousands upon thousands of people can march through war torn Portland with absolutely no violence but some how anyone getting near a federal agent gets shot in the face.