Wake me up later when something important happens. The fine article says: "The non-binding treaty, approved in Paris in December after years of U.N. climate negotiations, aims to slow the rise of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, blamed for putting Earth on a dangerous warming path." A "non-binding treaty" doesn't actually do anything, other than create photo opportunities.
Speed reading is awesome, but there's more than one speed. There's at least "speed with full comprehension", and "skimming to get the gist". I strongly recommend training yourself, overtime, to increase both speeds. You CAN'T do this all at once, but you can train your brain to recognize words more quickly. I used a training device so that I could recognize individual words more quickly, and that really helps you to read more quickly with full comprehension. Basically, as brain gets faster recognizing individual words, you'll naturally read faster with full comprehension. (You should also know how to sound out unfamiliar words, but familiar words should be recognzied quickly.) When you're skimming to get the gist, it's more about strategy - figuring out what parts of the text you need to read first (in most technical documents you read the abstract carefully, then skim the conclusions, then skim the introduction if looks like it might be useful.
I also recommend training listening speed. I listen to lots of podcasts, and I've slowly increased my listening speed by +10% over time. I can now listen to podcasts, with full comprehension, at 2x through 2.5x (depending on the original speed of the speakers).
Your brain can be trained to do things more quickly, but you have to train it. It's worth it.
because you people made it illegal for teachers to live in your area
Strawman. No one made it illegal to be a teacher (or fireman or whatever), and no one made anyone take that job either. If it's too expensive to live in SF as a teacher or fireman, then teachers and firemen start to disappear. If they are important, then their local salaries will get raised until they stop disappearing. That's how economics works.
Now clearly this causes lots of undesirable dislocations. But the fundamental problem here, as far as I can tell, is that SF's government appears to have discouraged building new housing, and been depending on mechanisms like rent controls which have KNOWN serious problems. You can pretend economics doesn't matter, but it does, and it causes lots of easily predictable effects. The SF city government appears to have let a problem fester, with (again) predictable consequences. It is entirely appropriate to be sympathetic to the many people harmed by the SF government's bad policies. Yes, they need help, and I think they SHOULD get help. But part of that help needs to be acknowledging that ignoring economics doesn't work.
My heart goes out to those evicted, or fearing eviction. To my untrained eye, the problems seem like an obvious result of supply-and-demand. SF has limited land, hasn't built much in the way of housing for a long time, and is in high demand. Of course the housing prices will go way up. The only solutions are to make it less desirable (lower demand), or increase housing (increase supply). Here's an interesting article: https://medium.com/@Scott_Wien...
Other cities have done this, e.g., DC has aggressively added new units.
"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain