Schiendelman

Sure, software engineers have less than two nines. :)

The ordinance does not prohibit a pet deposit.

Also, being able to stop down aperture will have positive impacts on video in daylight.

Å - long press "a" on the ios keyboard and you get a whole list, slide your finger to the one you want, and let go.

There's no situation with any technology where you would not have to do that.

It is encrypted. When you can run software on a device with a developer cert you can do a lot.

It is. When you have an unlocked device and developer certs you can do a lot.

Yes.

Yeah, because GDPR and AI laws in the EU conflict with each other and they haven't resolved it yet.

You don't need to share the original image with everyone, just like how journalists don't share their audio recordings from interviews with everyone. You share with an editor. Or a court.

This is correct (from someone who has worked on software to do this). Processing images for the 3D walkthroughs in real estate sometimes does this too.

Yes, that would be accurate :)

I guess I'm missing something? I took a Tesla cab with no human in it last week.

There's been plenty of evidence that nothing is recorded or sent back, hardly "absence of complete proof". People have identified basically everything coming from the network stack of an iPhone.

This is already normalized in most modern office buildings. There are video and audio recording devices in virtually all common areas. This started a bit after private offices were done away with.

I understood that. What about my response seems like I didn't? :)

It's also a solved problem by not deferring anything unless that person is past working age and low income. Letting people sit on wealth that they cannot pay a wealth tax on is generally bad for everyone with less wealth.

Oh, I'm with you. I think this needs to be overturned wholesale. Seattle is bad. Still better than California.

What if I did?

It's simpler than you're implying. Vancouver, like most cities, has dramatically limited what land you can build on. More than half the city is restricted to nothing larger than individual houses.

Tokyo, similarly, has hit the limit of what they allow to be built under the highest density of their stepped national zoning levels.

By what measure are you saying they've taken the opposite approach? It seems to me their approach has been nearly identical, just a little less restrictive.

If you're really interested: as density increases, population growth decreases. High density places become a sink for populations from elsewhere. You end up reaching a regional equilibrium, where some of the lowest density places start emptying out entirely. Japan is a great example of this, small towns there disappear regularly, as Tokyo grows. Suburban life around Tokyo remains very stable as the center increases and edges decrease.

A lot of this also comes down to prohibiting growth. In Seattle, every time we build a new building, everyone else's property tax payments decrease. High growth years lead to lower bills. The same would work in California, they just don't build much of anything because they've made it nearly impossible to.

So people were getting so wealthy that they couldn't pay the property tax on their wealth. Yes. The problem is, if you let them decide to tax other people instead of themselves for the spending they themselves approve, they will.

Resilience isn't prevention. Resilience is the systems to clean up after those events. To be able to build new housing for the people who survive, to route around problems.

Same reason we have Social Security. People can't plan on a long horizon.

There hasn't been a question about this in a decade or more. There was no path, even theoretically, to stopping our CO2 emissions without dramatically lowering quality of life for maybe a couple billion people.

We won't slow climate change. We can build resilience to the effects, and we have good incentives to do so. But we'll keep burning fossil fuels for a very long time.

The hard part here is that this is good for people in debt, and bad for the very wealthy, so it's not a bad way to redistribute wealth as long as real incomes are growing. During this period, real incomes have been growing, and faster than inflation. So the same outcome that would get you a $1000 burger would also get you the purchasing power for more burgers than you can afford today.

Do you understand how easy it would be to prove Apple lied about that if they did?

They didn't. It's an off the shelf chip, the threads on that post dismantled it pretty thoroughly as a false claim.

Tell me more! What evidence do you have that Apple is lying?