Look. I just want an email provider that pays enough dues to the smtp mafia so my personal correspondence doesn't hit spam or bounce. Why. Why can't just email be straightforward and transactional.
There are, unfortunately, a lot of listings on airbnb/vrbo/etc. that just shouldn't be. Not because the listings are bad, but because the people are looking to make a buck with the least amount of effort or care as possible. Technologies like this arise when there are too many of that category in a market.
Indeed. I live in a wealthy suburb in Oregon in the U.S., but my specific neighborhood is fairly middle class starter homes. It's nestled in an ordinarily very quiet and extremely safe place.
The next street over from me is an affordable housing duplex complex. I think about 20-30 duplexes total which house families with children. This is not a college town nor does it have anything within walking distance that would make it attract the busy-life. Several of these duplexes recently vacated their tenants and remodeled to charge more rent. The rent increase was too much and they sat empty for some time. The owners then put it up for sale and it was subsequently bought up by AirBnB investors.
This has brought a litany of issues. We've had several instances now of huge house parties where they rent all of the duplexes at once, and this has brought large police encounters. There's been property damage and violence against neighbors as a result of these parties. The commotion is not contained unfortunately and bleeds out into the neighboring streets, including my residence. We're talking probably a good 500ft radius from the actual AirBnB homes to the surrounding neighborhood. That's a large blast radius for those of us that never agreed to have this sort of presence so close to our homes. I feel awful for the homes in the actual complex, is they are getting the brunt of the disruption.
The last time I finally had it and collected video evidence then reported them to AirBnb citing the violence, property damage, and police reports. AirBnb was surprisingly responsive and so far it's been a couple of months without any issues - knock on wood. However my anger at the displacement of low income families in place of AirBnb homes remains. They have zero investment in the well-being of our neighborhood and only care about turning a profit on the homes. It frustrates me to no end.
Short-term rentals really need to be taxed accordingly to compensate for the cost of their externalities (loss of single-family houses in the market). I'm not sure how many localities do this.
No way. Hotels are already too expensive as are restaurants. I like to stay in a place and I don't want the cost increased just because the local gov't won't build housing. That is a different problem and I guarantee that tax won't fix anything.
Do you think that cities exist just for you to travel to? A little insight: these places require _residents_ to run the restaurants and destinations you like to visit. These residents are quickly getting priced out and the deluge of STRs is making the issue worse.
Maybe, just maybe, the STRs could be taxed and that money goes towards building more housing.
Legalizing is one thing. You also need to do surveys, zoning, platting, build roads, connect utility services, storm drains, and other municipal infrastructure, some of which may need upgrading to support the new additions.
100%. In less than a decade this so-called innovation went from "I want to host travelers in my spare bedroom to help make rent" to "I want to buy up homes in popular areas during a housing crunch and pimp them out to frat parties". I have lived next to a property by one of these "superhosts" and it's hell on the neighborhood.
STRs are a disgusting and tasteless business and I avoid staying in them at all costs
> Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for non-citizens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. 8 CFR 287 (a)(1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border.
> Nearly two-thirds of the U.S. population, over 213 million people, reside within the region that CBP considers falling within the 100-mile border zone, according to the 2020 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.
Even worse: The Trump administration claimed international airports as part of the border. (I saw that once, months ago. I do not know what the legal state of that claim is, or even whether it is currently part of their theory of what they are allowed to do.)
The problem is the 100 mile rule, which effectively puts most of the population under the purview of border control measures.
Apart from that, an airport is a comparatively small area of land that is magnitudes easier to monitor than a border that only exists as a thousands of miles long line on the map, therefore the 100 miles rule should not be applied. And everyone getting off an international flight in the USA has already been searched multiple times.
I can't supply you a reference. It was... maybe 4 to 6 months ago? Border Patrol was doing something more than 100 miles from the border, and a reporter asked them what their justification was for being active that far inland, and the Border Patrol spokesperson said "international airport".
I mean, that could have been just one person's attempt to justify them operating outside their legal authority. Or it could have been what they were told to say, meaning it was somewhat more official policy (or at least official smokescreen du jour). At any rate, it has been claimed, at least once, not in court but to the press.
If so this was an individual claim, it’s not known to be official policy, the law doesn’t support it, and it hasn’t been used as a successful argument in court. This claim comes up regularly but it’s a misinterpretation/rumor. People should stop repeating it or it will become one of those “folk truths” that eventually becomes accepted and real.
It's not a folk truth that I saw it, in a mainstream news report, said by a Border Patrol employee to justify their actions more than 100 miles from the border. That's not a misinterpretation; that really happened. At least once.
I would be delighted for it to not have been an actual administration claim, ever.
Fair, I have no doubt that someone has falsely claimed it in order to do an illegal search, but it still is a false claim and (based on current understanding of the law) would not hold up in court.
As it is the 100 mile zone sweeps in most of the population.
Isn't it telling that if your immediate thought is to subvert said LAW? That doesn't seem to be serving the people then does it, but the state. The state is supposed to serve its people
I assume journalists would already do this actually maybe they don't?
There dosent appear to be any import/export controls on the current internet is there?
If they say import export control gives them the right to search citizens maybe they should be aware of this giant gapping hole that the internet created 30+ years ago?
I mean, that's what the State tells you to stop uprising, but there has never in history been a state that served the people it governed, it serves the people who govern. It's all just big gangs with weapons, and sometimes one gang takes over another's territory. Everything else is window dressings to prevent other gangs from forming.
I thought DMR and Venice were supporting memory encryption by default. With the keys living on the CPU side and no standards for key sharing, I wonder how this will gain traction.
reply