59 karma · joined January 10, 2018
This would be extremely surprising to me. Citation needed.
I'm sure you knew that though. What exactly is your point? Would you like me to rewrite my original post in fully specified legalese just so you can't nitpick? :P
What a horrible precedent.
I’m also not convinced by a “don’t worry the camera is bad” argument; looking at drone footage online it seems to have plenty of resolution to distinguish people in one’s backyard, for example, and I’d expect those to only get better over time.
- you're in the middle of nowhere
- you're doing it exclusively on a property you own (and the property is large enough)
- the use case is in the public good (e.g.: police can use guns)
In other cases, the downsides are large given potential for abuse/voyeurism/sabotage, and upsides seem nil.
Compared to SF, LA is a true big city, as close to New York as you can get on the west coast. In comparison SF is a petty small town, complete with the provincial backstabbing and all.
The government is not a human who better pay off their debt by 65 or they're screwed. The government'll keep receiving income "forever", in a pretty predictable way. So there is no reason to ever stop borrowing; it'd be leaving money on the table (utility of a dollar now > utility of a dollar later).
What happened here is that the government finally set a rate that is agreeable to both parties, which is of course in its interest and long overdue.