Those Uber drivers either have confused unrealized gains with wealth, or have realized those gains by leaving someone else holding the bag. Probably someone else just like them.
What happens if anyone buys a surrounded parcel? Generally there is a way to get an easement across private land to access other land. Maybe the legislature could help, and force an automatic easement process across any land where the owner doesn't want people crossing without permission.
What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel?
Private owners are generally expected to understand and establish easements.
I'm generally in favor of something like a right to roam, though I expect (many) people would ignore the part where they should be respectful of the land they are crossing.
I mean… they represent two very different acts, albeit with the same outcome. It makes sense that we use different words for it.
We even draw the distinction between degrees of murder since sitting down and planning a murder in cold blood (murder in the first degree) is far different than a road rage incident with a gun (murder 2) which is different still than a shove in a bar where someone falls down and hits their head and dies (manslaughter). Hell, some places even distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
The point is that all these words have meaning, and we deeply care about the nuance.
Not the OP, but I used to use it while off-roading.
If you are in 4-lo it means you can start the car in gear on a tricky section and not have to worry about using the clutch or rolling backwards while the clutch is disengaged. Part of this is probably to do with the unconventional parking brake that toyota trucks use. They have a t-handle under the steering wheel, so it is harder to use the parking brake as a hill-holder than it would be with a truck with a traditional lever style brake handle.
It has a very limited use case, but its handy when you need it.
I understand what it is. It works because it can accurately estimate the available traction. A lot of the problems drivers have in slippery conditions boil down to not correctly estimating available traction.
Private property has never really been exclusive. This isn't a new line that is being crossed.
"Owning" land gives you some rights over it, but not exclusive ones. It doesn't even give you exclusive right to access the land. People can temporarily access the land for a variety of legal and valid reasons like utility work, police investigations, sales, surveys, etc. They can even permanently access the land through easements.
Right to Roam isn't saying that you don't have property rights, it is just providing another limited exception to an already long list. It is saying that people have the right to enter your unimproved land for the purpose of crossing it in a way that does not interfere with the property owner's other rights. In some places it also includes the right to temporarily sleep on the land.
There is no 'material requirement' to being a human that requires that if you own a large piece of unimproved land, people cannot peacefully walk across the parts you aren't using.
What happens if a public land manager buys a land locked parcel?
Private owners are generally expected to understand and establish easements.
I'm generally in favor of something like a right to roam, though I expect (many) people would ignore the part where they should be respectful of the land they are crossing.
Doors and windows are designed to open, and frequently they don't lock automatically (or the lock is VERY insecure). There are crawl spaces, attics, mail slots, balconies, garage doors, etc. that frequently connect the outside to the inside.
My read is that the people who do well in trades are smart, hard-working and ambitious. That combination of traits tends to do well no matter where they are applied.
While there is plenty of money to be made in the trades, one thing that gets ignored is, as you said, the working conditions. Further, those working conditions compound over the years and absolutely wreck bodies.
My impression is that the trades are reasonably well served. So the people with work do fine in a trade, but there aren't well paying jobs for millions more people there.
(I'm thinking of the U.S. where home building is at a relatively low rate right now)
All of the automatic bollards I've seen are very clearly signed, and frequently have lights indicating their presence. It is very rare that they are not very obvious.
In any case, if you are following another vehicle so closely that you cannot see a hazard in the road in front of you, it is your fault for hitting that hazard (by law in most places).
US national holidays mean nothing in the context of employment. The US does not require private employers to close, pay extra, or provide paid time off for those holidays.
A lot of people that use password managers don't know their passwords (I only know a few of mine). Maybe calling it a flaw is too severe, but it isn't doing those folks any good.
None of it is required, at least on the ocean in Washington.
When you cross the border on the water, you aren't required to report until you go to land (if you never set foot in Canada, but only sail through territorial waters, there is no requirement to report), at which point you must go to a specified customs dock, and present your paperwork.
The experience crossing into Canada seems to vary quite a lot.
The two times I crossed (~5 and 15 years ago) the Canadian border agents were polite and brief. I guess that first one was in the days where US citizens didn't need a passport to travel to Canada.
That's intentionally built into the regulation though, if you can not carry a plan and then sign up for coverage whenever you need it, it isn't anything resembling insurance anymore.
People are still really critical of the current regulation, where you can sign up during the enrollment period without any penalty.
This is like saying that they have an AI policy, but that using an LLM isn’t in violation since it is just calculus applied to words and not true intelligence.
Courts aren’t stupid for the most part. Most of them are happy to interpret things in terms of what a ‘reasonable person’ would think, for better or worse. Right now, most reasonable people would say that using an LLM to do your work without disclosing it is in violation of the spirit of the student handbook.
I could fine tune an AI, and name it after myself, and put my own name at the top of the paper as an attribution, but no reasonable person would say that was following the spirit of the law if I turned that in as a class assignment.
As long as they did a reasonable job of making sure the company running the AI didn't have the questions long enough to just go cheat, I think the law professors should have much more to say about the output than an AI professor would.
The more important metric is that there are only 238 million licensed drivers in the US.
So if every single licensed driver went for a drive, they could invite all 26 million licensed Canadians to come down and use a spare car, and still have 22 million registered cars left over.
Your figure makes more sense as a per driver figure. There are about 100 million Americans who do not have a license to drive (and reason to believe that most of them do not drive illegally):
The passenger vehicle fleet is also about 250 million (estimates arriving at that figure are including pickups that are used as cars).
I guess the typical American might be a modal driver, but it seems odd to use a definition of typical that discards ~1/3 of the population in question.
Call a local machine shop, mechanic or welder and ask. Almost every town and city has a store that specializes in hardware for tradies that has better pricing and selection than HD or Ace or homeowner stores.
My not particularly large community has a Menard's and a decent lumber yard (that also sells nice hardware items) and a place ~10 miles away that you can order whatever from.
I sort of hate Menard's, but they do charge a lot less than the better builder stores.
Another small town I've lived in had a Home Depot and a higher end builder store right across the street.
Much of the water being discussed is in rivers and streams, which is taken as it passes through the land that uses it. It is only useful if it is in that exact waterway. There is no such thing as a market rate for water in a dry river.
If you turn it into an open market there are all sorts of weird complications. E.g. ranch A is upstream of Ranch B. Under a market system ranch A can use all of the water in the stream and just pay for it. Ranch B now doesn’t get that option since there is no more water in the stream. Rancher B can buy more water, but what good is buying water in a river that doesn’t go through your land.
So then you get to a rights based system. Rancher B has been watering his fields for 100 years, and rancher A comes along and says he wants to water his fields too. That’s fine, he just has to lay claim to whatever rancher B isn’t using.
The rights system would work fine except that nature won’t cooperate. We divided up rights for 100 units of water fair and square, so what do we do when we discover that we can only get 90 units of water.
Do you all take a 10% cut? Does the newest guy take the full cut (how it works now)?
You say it’s not complex, but millions of lives and industries worth trillions all rely on it. The current solution is a known flawed treaty that is almost 100 years old based on legal concepts that are far older. If it was so simple it would have been solved back then.
What does 'the market rate' mean for all the infrastructure (I guess most of the agriculturally interesting surface water has been diverted under existing regulation)?
I don't mean that in a snide way, I just wonder what exactly you mean. Like, would it be okay under this market system for someone to purchase a large amount of the land where the water originates and construct a huge dam+reservoir? Would adjacent property owners have to go to court to redo the resolution of their competing interest in water that happens to flow across the properties?
US national holidays mean nothing in the context of employment. The US does not require private employers to close, pay extra, or provide paid time off for those holidays.
US holidays don't apply to private workers. Lots of companies do offer paid days off on those days, but it would be a new thing to make them required paid days off.
There were loud reports of them venting steam from the containment into the atmosphere, so yes, they lost containment. As I understand it, none of the fuel is exposed directly to the environment, the problems have all been with the cooling water (which is still a big deal, but at least there is more hope of improving that situation than if the fuel had somehow dispersed).
The constitution does not exclusively apply to US citizens is the good news.
The bad news is that there is no explicit and broad right to privacy in the constitution. You are protected by the fourth amendment requiring a warrant for searches and seizures, but the court has ruled that, citizen or not, if a third party like Meta willingly hands over your info, it’s fair game. L
The US constitution doesn't say much about privacy.
The 4th amendment restricts the government from doing things that would (in part) violate privacy of individuals, but it doesn't say much about what other citizens can do in public places.
The myth isn’t a myth. It refers to the price of calories, not the price of food by weight.
You end up with the cheapest calories being lightly processed grains like rice and flour, then you end up with more processed grains like white bread and ramen, then move to things like peanut butter, before hitting junk food. The point is that the cheapest calories aren’t exactly healthy.
The produce aisle tends to be pretty expensive per calorie, potatoes excepted, since veggies aren’t calorically dense, and are sold mostly by weight.
That’s irrelevant to legality, which is what I was talking about.
Medical consent is more complicated than just this, and what you’re talking about crosses into doctor patient confidentiality as well.
Suffice it to say that testing patients without informed consent and sharing that data with law enforcement is not something that most ethical review boards would condone.
From a practical and moral point of view this kind of incident is what keeps people from telling their doctor all of the relevant information for best care. If you have a drug problem and think a medical provider will work to have your child taken away if you are honest about it, will you ever seek treatment or be honest?
If you don’t have a drug problem, but still think that what you say to your doctor or kids doctor will get used against you, will you hesitate to get care in the future?
Do you think these mothers will ever interact with another pediatrician with full trust again?
The drug test is relevant to providing care to the mother. In the case of a delivery, I think it is reasonable to consider the results of the test while providing care for the child.
It's obviously a thorny question, but what should a facility that treats children do when it notices a conflict between the interests of the child and the interests of the parent? It's clearly going to happen.
Its one thing to figure out how to wire the vibrator in a phone into an external explosive activation circuit.
Its a whole other thing to do a supply chain intercept on an entire factory run of pagers, build a difficult to detect explosive into them, get them into the hands of your enemies, and remotely trigger them over infrastructure you don't directly control.
This is an incredible level of execution. And, presumably, the IDF or some attached intelligence agency demonstrating how deeply they own their adversary's networks.
It isn't clear to me they have any idea what they are talking about. They are obviously paranoid (why else have a rocket launcher?).
I would expect the secure equipment to not leak information when exposed to a weak RF source, and I wonder if the cell phones in question are themselves secure (there was a bunch of noise about the special effort required to provision secure cell phones at the time).
This is already the law in many places.
This is an article about Canada but, for example California Model Penal Code 466 says that:
Every person having upon him or her in his or her possession a
picklock, crow, keybit, crowbar, screwdriver, vise grip pliers,
water-pump pliers, slidehammer, slim jim, tension bar, lock pick gun,
tubular lock pick, bump key, floor-safe door puller, master key,
ceramic or porcelain spark plug chips or pieces, or other instrument
or tool with intent feloniously to break or enter... is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Basically, if you are carrying anything that will be used for breaking and entering, with the intent of breaking or entering, that also is a crime.
Those Uber drivers either have confused unrealized gains with wealth, or have realized those gains by leaving someone else holding the bag. Probably someone else just like them.
reply