tmyakal

I literally get goosebumps just thinking about this texture. I hate it.

One on the left line line Mike Bloomberg.

Dr. King’s policy was, if you are nonviolent, if you suffer, your opponent will see your suffering and will be moved to change his heart. That’s very good. He only made one fallacious assumption. In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience. The United States has none.

Stokely Carmichael

I love when someone has already answered my question in the comments.

I went on the Balder in Sweden in 2005. At the time, it was the steepest wooden coaster in the world with a 70° drop. It was terrifying. I can’t imagine or understand who would want a 121° drop.

… did you even read the thread your responding to? The whole premise is a landlord making a value judgement on the additional 8 hours per day that may incur wear and tear on the property.

And to be clear, I’m not arguing the validity of that position. I’m arguing the legality of that clause. It’s difficult to prove and likely prohibitively expensive to enforce, but not fundamentally illegal in much of the US. If the landlord puts it in the lease, and the tenant signs that lease, then the tenant better be prepared for argumentative bullshit from their landlord.

Not exclusively. There are plenty that are run privately and/or partner with rehab clinics as the next step after in-patient detox.

Yes, a lot of people can end up there as part of a sentencing agreement, but not all. I would be surprised if it was even most. And regardless of inciting circumstances, it’s still a living situation that is contingent on strict rules and guidelines that the tenant must agree to or face eviction. Which is exactly what we’re talking about: can a landlord dictate the conditions under which you’re allowed to stay? Yes, as long as it’s in writing, agreed to by both parties, and doesn’t violate any local, state, or federal laws.

If you want a less extreme example, we can talk about a lease that stipulates no smoking inside. That’s a pretty standard clause these days in localities that allow it. Would we give it the same scrutiny and pushback? Probably not, because most people don’t smoke these days and that expectation has been normalized. Just because landlords haven’t gotten to normalize limited usage hours for a property yet doesn’t mean it’s illegal for them to try.

TL;DR: If it’s not illegal, a lease can require anything both parties agree to. Not saying that is right, common, or economical to enforce, but it’s a thing that is true.

Agreed, I said exactly as much:

enforceable as long as they don’t explicitly conflict with local laws.

Oh yeah, as I said, it’s a very difficult thing to prove and absolutely not worth the money wasted trying to enforce it. But there’s no rule saying dogs can’t play basketball. If a landlord wants to put it in, and a tenant knowingly signs it, the tenant needs to be prepared for the possibility of this turning into a huge pain in the ass.

I guess it depends on what freedoms you associate with being a domicile. Plenty of leases have specific restrictions in the agreement that are enforceable as long as they don’t explicitly conflict with local laws. No smoking, no pets, etc are all valid and enforceable clauses to put in a lease. I’ve signed leases saying “guests can’t stay longer than 24 hours” without batting an eye.

Requiring a tenant to be out of the house 8 hours per day is odd and difficult to prove, but if you sign a lease that says it, I don’t see how you wouldn’t be accountable to it.

The principle already exists. Halfway-houses often have curfews: if you’re out of the house after X time without a valid excuse, you are in violation of your lease. There’s also 55+ communities: if you’re letting your 20-something kid crash with you, you’re in violation of your lease.

As long as it’s not a protected status or violates local renting laws explicitly, a landlord can put just about anything they want in the lease agreement. If the tenant signed the agreement with those clauses, they’re obliged to abide by those clauses.

“Where you work” is not a protected characteristic in the US. Plenty of places where a landlord could throw this clause into the lease, and if they can prove you violated it, they can start eviction proceedings.

It would be very difficult to prove, and the ensuing legal battle may cost more than the “additional maintenance” that may be required, but in theory these bastards can do pretty much whatever they want.

Honestly, with the way the economy has been going, my family is eating all-vegatarian two or three days per week because it costs less. And on the meals where we do eat meat, fish and poultry are so much cheaper than pork and beef. The idiot running the US inadvertently forced me into a healthier diet. I guess that leaves more McDonald’s hamburgers for him?

if this doesn’t become profitable in a mainstream way

This is exactly what I meant by Bernie being caught up in tech CEO bluster. He can’t imagine that this shit doesn’t change the world in monumental and lucrative ways. He’s talked about how the tech people he’s spoken to don’t like his proposal because they don’t want to share the profits, but I haven’t seen any CEO make public comments one way or the other. With everyone involved knowing it’s a bubble, I’m sure they secretly love to insure their investments with public money. They just can’t say it out loud or the bubble might pop early.

And, yes, people of every age are tech illiterate. But overwhelmingly the elderly are the people crafting legislation about tech. Old age is heavily associated with cognitive decline, which makes it harder to understand, examine, and interrogate unfamiliar ideas, such as “AI” or “Whatever the Fuck Private Equity is Doing Right Now.” Bernie’s a smart guy, and it seems like he’s still sharper than a lot of his contemporaries, but you can’t fight nature. I’d rather see him cosponsor legislation with a younger senator and mentor the next generation of congress, instead of hanging on to the bitter end and giving us half-baked policy like this.

I listened to a pretty comprehensive interview Bernie had regarding his proposal a few weeks ago. My big takeaway was that he fundamentally misunderstands the technology as it currently exists, and while he’s skeptical of the motives of these tech CEOs, he’s completely bought in on their nonsense claims of fully automating the workforce.

AKA an octogenarian suggesting legislation on a technology he doesn’t understand. This is a thing that has bitten Americans in the ass countless times in the last four decades.

But Bernie’s been advocating for this, guys! You know, Bernie! He’s surely not another octogenarian career politician with a limited understanding of the tech sector!

You really held out for a while, huh?

Silverchair had a song that had one lyric that always stuck out to me:

I don’t want to be lonely; I just wanna be alone.

School is not just an institution for formal education. Schools are have rights and responsibilities with regard to child care. Most schools act as a co-parent, providing structure, support, and discipline, while also fostering social, emotional, and intellectual growth. This situation is the equivalent of confiding in one parent and not another. Even if their parents were totally cool with names and pronouns, betraying that confidence destroys the child’s trust, agency, and sense of security.

If a parent believes it’s their sole responsibility to rear their child, they should be homeschooling. The second you put a kid on a bus, you’re co-parenting with the state.

The police officer didn’t witness the crime. They’re making that Judgement based on evidence provided by a third party.

If my house were broken into, and I managed to capture video of the incident, I can’t just hand that to the police and call it a day. The accused has a constitutionally protected right to face me in court, not just the video or the officer I gave the video to, so that their defense can interrogate it fully. What if there is additional context that undermines the narrative presented by this single piece of evidence? If I know the accused and had a reason to see them convicted (such as getting a kickback from any fine they pay), now my clear evidence becomes a little more suspect. Now there’s a very clear motive for me to skew, misinterpret, or completely fabricate the video.

That’s what OP is referring to. If a company is going to install cameras and claim their cameras caught me doing something I shouldn’t have, I have a right to ask that company for more details regarding their claim. Ideally in a public court, with a representative of the company under oath.