The only people who know about SB-827 are housing policy wonks and homeowners associations. If the people who it really affects—like Millennials—knew what was happening, it would have a much better chance.
> For that matter I’ve also never had anyone of any gender implore me to be careful when loading my children into a car, which statistically speaking is far more warranted.
This would be extremely surprising to me. Citation needed.
Do you think it's good for a democracy if someone's career is limited by their political beliefs?
Keep in mind too, these aren't fringe political beliefs. It's generally accepted in non-western countries that men and women are different, for example, yet somehow that's a fireable offense here.
The H1Bs I know that support Trump do so mostly because of economic reasons, and because of the immigration policies, like fixing H1B abuse, and making legal immigrants take priority over illegal ones (Democrats are perceived to do the opposite).
Mexicans too. But thats a global effect, immigrants usually vote anti-immigration - it seems paradoxical at first, but they have the the most to loose.
How is fixing H1B abuse by a few companies (Infosys and such) considered an anti-immigration stance? As far as I know, the proposed solution was not to reduce the yearly cap on H1B visas (which indeed would reduce the number of immigrants), but to put higher base requirements, so the quality of an average candidate is better and that qualified candidates don't waste years and years trying to just get the visa while being stuck in a legal limbo. If anything, the current H1B system is more inhumane, because qualified people are playing the visa lottery in hopes that they will not get cut by someone like Infosys who mercilessly spams the visa system with all the resources they have.
That seems very excessive, though regulation so far has been positive. Not that this is you, but fear of "voyeurism" is often said by people who aren't familiar with drones. I've owned multiple drones and would never consider them a spying tool since they aren't discrete/sound like a flying lawnmower. Additionally, most drones are equipped with wide-angle lenses which means you'd have to get pretty close to spy.
My main worry about drones comes from terrorists using them where crowds of people are gathered (concerts, events, etc), as other people have mentioned.
It doesn’t really matter how discrete or not they are if even if you know about it you can’t do much about it.
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.
USA, which, contrary to popular belief, has lots of restrictions on the use (though not necessarily ownership) of guns. Try discharging a weapon anywhere near a major metropolitan area and let me know how it goes :)
Again, wrong. If I own a property in a major metropolitan area, I generally can’t discharge a firearm in the city just because I do it on my own property.
This is why I said, in my original comment, "and the property is large enough" (implying it doesn't interfere with others; or you have a permit, ...).
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
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.
If the % required to service it was growing significantly, that'd be a problem. The debt outstanding growing, on its own, doesn't matter.
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).
Does that validate the guess #1, that there is a trust from lenders in the future of [US] economy, as you're saying that $1 now < value of that $ tomorrow?
In other words, it's ok to lend 1$ today because tomorrow that $, even if devaluated, will help people getting more services and maybe getting more $.
That is very interesting. It sounds like we manage to magically create some unlimited resources that is creating the world's wealth and strength. It sounds magical. What's the catch? What's the limitation of creating more wealth, faster?
Is today's dollar value simply based on the value that it can potentially have tomorrow? - From a non-economist point of view, it's quite hard to picture.
