If you mean "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming", then that's probably the least bad way to be wrong. Because when you're wrong at least the world will be better off. Like betting against your own team: if they lose you win and if they win you don't mind losing.
In Berkeley, CA they purposefully break up the grid for cars. So a street will be passable to pedestrians and bikes but blocked by bollards for cars. This gives the cul-de-sac effect without causing terrible walkability. Of course, traditional winding suburbs can accomplish something similar by adding pedestrian walkways through cul-de-sacs.
I think what you're saying is that the person getting stolen from has a duty to surrender their property to avoid escalating. That sounds absurd to me? The person doing the stealing is the one escalating as the natural state is the original owner keeping possession of their property. "Give me your wallet." "No." -- What happens next and who is the one escalating?
I doubt a thief would stick around for the cops to arrive. And I do think everyone knows you don't pull a gun until you're ready to fire it to neutralize a threat. (A truck is probably not a theat unless it's trying to run you over.)
I had to look this up: (1) Boudin (mother) agreed to a plea deal to get the felony murder result, (2) Gilbert (father) was convicted of murder (not felony murder).
This doesn't sound like a very controversial result. What part do you think is controversial?
One way to solve the problem without expensive social safety nets is to have private stores that only allow entry to members. Maybe stores can band together so that a single membership grants entry to all the stores in a neighborhood. (Another way is delivery/curbside pickup which seems more likely in SF.)
Is that a better social outcome than enforcing these retail theft laws?
I think the general idea is that the thief would have to escalate to physical violence in order to steal the prize. The physical violence escalation would then justify pulling out the pistol and shooting. Roughly the thief would have to escalate to mugging.
I agree with this, but the misunderstanding because no one is explicitly talking about how there is a desire to preserve rent controlled units. This means it's very hard for the econ 101 to play out.
Because of the laws around new buildings, rent control advocates have an incentive to prevent old buildings from being redeveloped: if they are redeveloped then there will be fewer rent controlled units! This does regularly play out in the politics of development in the area[0].
Then when rent controlled unit can be redeveloped, there's a desire to allocate various percentages to different income levels. This means that some units have less income for the same cost so it's hard to balance meaning fewer projects get off the ground.
Now there's even further issues about development as a right vs requiring a use permit...
So, there's a lot of contributors, but the political impact of the politics of rent control is significant.
With uses segregated, the "reasonable" argument does not make sense to me: infrastructure will have to be maximized because there will be big migrations of people based on normal use times like going to work. You need twice as much parking, twice as much freeway throughput.
One of the functions of the government is to educate and train its population. I think using that function could resolve the shortage or high cost of talent.
I agree that it's terrible that people did not read before tweeting.
I believe Greg was not saying Aditya was both incompetent and malicious. Greg was saying incompetent or malicious. The incompetence stemmed from how Aditya handled his static analysis patches: seemingly no manual review and no explicit statement that the patches were from a tool (which is apparently standard procedure).
Is it really faster? I'm thinking if you have blocked the ads, that will be significantly faster. Google's benchmarks of course would not include how much faster HTTP3 is for pages with blocked ad content.
If I can summarize: search warrants should not be banned but we should enforce the checks and balances that justify their existence in the first place.
I agree with that 100%. I dk believ that is orthogonal to using warrants on public surveillance. Maybe politically it might be a nice lever, though: we will authorize surveillance with this new system in place for all warrants.