Completionist
49 stories
·
16 followers

Shake Shack Is Coming to SF, Palo Alto, and Marin

1 Comment

The SF location will be in the Marina

Shake Shack is finally entering the Bay Area burger fray. Representatives for the New York-based chain tell the San Francisco Chronicle that three locations are on the way: The first Bay Area Shake Shack will open in the Stanford Shopping Center at 180 El Camino Real, another is bound for Larkspur where a lease is being finalized, and a third is headed to San Francisco proper, most likely located in the Marina according to the paper.

Confirming the news, a Shake Shack representative tells Eater SF that the Palo Alto location should open in fall 2018. The space was previously a Wells Fargo bank that’s attached to PF Chang’s. It faces a small piece of parkland that the local Shake Shack will work with the city to “activate,” adding seating, string lights, and games. That setup recalls the first Shake Shack, which opened in 2004 in New York City’s Madison Square Park.

 Shake Shack
Shake Shake Palo Alto rendering
 Shake Shack
Shake Shake Palo Alto rendering

Real estate blog Socketsite reports that the former Real Food Company location in Cow Hollow, at 3060 Fillmore Street (at Filbert) could be the Shake Shack’s new home. There, planning documents show developers want to convert the closed grocery store space to a combination “luxury fine casual restaurant and fitness studio.” Alec Paddock, a real estate developer for the site, confirms to Eater SF that he’s been in talks with Shake Shack about opening there.

“We have done business with them before, and like them as a concept,” says Paddock, “so that’s one we’re strongly considering at this point.” More is to be revealed at upcoming neighborhood outreach meetings.

Beyond the conditional use permit for change of use, the site would require a permit exempting Shake Shack from the city’s ban on formula retail, as Shake Shack is way, way beyond the local 11-location limit. The business has exploded into a major chain with more than 160 locations worldwide, seven of them in California. But until now, the brand has stayed out of the local Bay Area market, which includes similar chain Super Duper and boasts access to In-N-Out.

In the Marina, it should be noted, formula retail isn’t likely to be a deal-breaker. The area has permitted nearby businesses like Equinox, Nike, and Lululemon.

Read the whole story
mihai
31 days ago
reply
Finally we can do the Shake Shack vs. In-And-Out comparison without handicapping either one with the transport time.
Cupertino, CA
Share this story
Delete

charlietuna: RT @prydwen3: To avoid futher confusion

1 Comment
RT: @prydwen3: To avoid futher confusion

at 11:15 AM from Kindle
Read the whole story
mihai
34 days ago
reply
For Ann.

Also, macaron/macaroon would have been in the running for my “most trivial hill you’d die on” meme from last month.
Cupertino, CA
Share this story
Delete

Mixed Blessings Of Greenfield Software Development

1 Comment and 2 Shares

The biggest software project I have ever worked on, and hopefully ever will work on, was Gecko. I was not one of its original architects, so my work on Gecko was initially very tightly constrained by design decisions made by others. Over the years some of those decisions were rescinded, and some of the new decisions were mine, but I always felt frustrated at being locked into designs that I didn't choose and (with the benefit of hindsight, at least) would not have chosen. "Wouldn't it be great", I often thought, "to build something entirely new from scratch, hopefully getting things right, or at least having no-one other than myself to blame for my mistakes!" I guess a lot of programmers feel this, and that's why we see more project duplication than the world really needs.

I was lucky enough at Mozilla to work on a project that gave me a bit of an outlet for this — rr. I didn't actually do much coding in rr at the beginning — Albert Noll, Nimrod Partush and Chris Jones got it underway — but I did participate in the design decisions.

Over the last two years Kyle Huey and I have been working on a new project which is broader in scope and more complicated than rr. The two of us have designed everything (with some feedback from some wonderful people, who know who they are) and implemented everything. We've been able to make our design choices quite freely — still constrained by external realities (e.g. the vagaries of the x86 instruction set), but not by legacy code. It has been exhilarating.

However, with freedom comes responsibility. My decision-making has constantly been haunted by the fear of being "That Person" — the one whom, years from now, developers will curse as they work around and within That Person's mistakes. I've also come to realize that being unencumbered by legacy design decisions can make design more difficult because the space is so unconstrained. This is exacerbated by the kind of project we're undertaking: it's a first-of-a-kind, so there aren't patterns to follow, and our system has novel, powerful and flexible technical capabilities, so we can dream up all sorts of features and implement them in different ways. It's scary. We have to accept that mistakes will be made and just hope that none of them are crippling. After all, if developers are cursing our design decisions years from now, that means we succeeded!

One of our biggest challenges is constantly trying to strike the right balance between forward planning and expediency. It's always tempting to respond to uncertainty by planning for all possibilities, by building abstractions that make it easier to change decisions later. Another temptation is to obsessively study issues to reduce the uncertainty. All that represents delay for our minimum viable product, and therefore must be minimized. My general approach here is to try to think about the future, but not code for it; to tell stories about how we would handle possible future scenarios, but not invest in them yet.

I think we're doing OK. Being nearly two years in is long enough to have regrets, and we don't have many. It will be very interesting, and humbling, to review our scorecard over the longer term.

Read the whole story
mihai
50 days ago
reply
I had similar feelings ~5 years ago as coding on Quip was ramping up.
Cupertino, CA
Share this story
Delete

Saturday, December 09, 2017

1 Comment
Read the whole story
mihai
58 days ago
reply
I don’t understand how parenting worked before tablets.
Cupertino, CA
Share this story
Delete

Making Progress

9 Comments and 27 Shares
I started off with countless problems. But now I know, thanks to COUNT(), that I have "#REF! ERROR: Circular dependency detected" problems.
Read the whole story
mihai
115 days ago
reply
For Ann
Cupertino, CA
Share this story
Delete
6 public comments
daanzu_alt_text_bot
98 days ago
reply
I started off with countless problems. But now I know, thanks to COUNT(), that I have "#REF! ERROR: Circular dependency detected" problems.
growler
117 days ago
reply
Всё так
bogorad
117 days ago
GTD rulez :)
JayM
117 days ago
reply
Heh
Atlanta, GA
zippy72
118 days ago
reply
I've got 99 problems or 103 depending whether my DCOUNT() or COUNTIF() is correct
FourSquare, qv
Covarr
118 days ago
reply
I started the day with coffee. But now, after hours and hours of work, it's worn off.
Moses Lake, WA
NielsRak
118 days ago
*minutes
expatpaul
118 days ago
reply
A far too familiar feeling
Belgium

Bloomberg: Apple Working on ARM Chip for Macs to Run Power Nap Features

1 Comment

Interesting scoop from Mark Gurman and Ian King:

Apple engineers are planning to offload the Mac’s low-power mode, a feature marketed as “Power Nap,” to the next-generation ARM-based chip. This function allows Mac laptops to retrieve e-mails, install software updates, and synchronize calendar appointments with the display shut and not in use. The feature currently uses little battery life while run on the Intel chip, but the move to ARM would conserve even more power, according to one of the people.

The current ARM-based chip for Macs is independent from the computer’s other components, focusing on the Touch Bar’s functionality itself. The new version in development would go further by connecting to other parts of a Mac’s system, including storage and wireless components, in order to take on the additional responsibilities. […]

However, Apple has no near-term plans to completely abandon Intel chips for use in its laptops and desktops, the people said.

It’s interesting to ponder how this might work from a software perspective. With the current Touch Bar, there’s a conceptual wall between the Intel side and the ARM side. The “Mac” stuff all runs on the Intel side, and there’s an iOS computer on the ARM side that only does Touch Bar-related things.

I don’t think this use-the-ARM-chip-during-Power-Nap idea would involve emulating x86 code on ARM — you’d lose the energy efficiency advantage of ARM, which is the whole point. My guess is that Mac apps (and OS services) that want to take advantage of it would do so via small extensions, compiled both for ARM (for these future MacBooks) and x86 (for all other Macs).

Read the whole story
mihai
381 days ago
reply
PalmOS ARM-lets are making a comeback!
Cupertino, CA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories