That’s some of the worst wannabe Cory Doctorow edge lord crap writing I’ve ever read. I’m surprised the author was able to resist the urge to use the word “sheeple”.
This is the reality - most airports run their runways “to the fence” for some variation of “to the fence”. If they could reasonably have a thousand extra feet of runway they’ll add that, as it supports more operations and doesn’t really hurt.
Some of them even move around the recommended touchdown point depending on other factors, if the runway is extra long.
No. The police will offer you the option to come to the police station and fill out a report so you can get a police report number for your insurance claim. Nothing else will happen.
I’m also imagining the police telling you that you can do something that is actually illegal, and then you get prosecuted for it. “The cops said it was ok” may not be an adequate defense.
So all Jessie Pinkman's got to do is ask the under cover police if it's okay to sell them meth and then they can't be arrested for it?
Entrapment is reserved for the police going above and beyond, eg "sell me meth or I'll kill your dog" where it can be argued that the entrapped normally would not do the crime.
Apparently there is “entrapment by estoppel” in which a government official tells you an act is legal when it isn’t. They have to be acting as a representative of the government, though; undercover cops wouldn’t count.
I still wouldn’t be very excited to try this defense in court.
Don't you know the other rule of drug dealing? If you ask an undercover cop if they're an undercover cop, they have to tell you the truth? it's against the rules for them to lie about it.
That's a reasonable suspicion (though I think a lot of the contrarian comments are just people who want to complain about the police).
Working with that suspicion, especially given that this is HN, police saying "don't go steal it back" might still be very good advice, regardless of legal right.
For example (referring back to a scenario earlier in thread), I'm imagining a techbro crew, all jumping into one of their Teslas, and rolling up on misguided urban youth turf.
There's already a lot of misunderstanding and animosity, both ways, between stereotypes. And someone's attempt at "show of force" just escalated it. So, who will escalate the stupid further, and stab or draw a gun first.
> How do you think the police will give bad advice
the police will give you any advice, good or bad. They're not legally responsible for anything they said to you, as long as they're not telling you to commit a crime (in which case, if they did they will deny it).
You can still call 'em up of course - but don't 100% just trust their words blindly.
We have hundreds of years of examples of the blessed free market failing to do exactly that.
If the free market had it's way we'd still be under the yoke of Standard Oil and Ma Bell.
One key element of a free market is the "well informed consumer". How is the consumer supposed to be informed about what new cutting edge chemicals are toxic, for instance?
Information is good, but it doesn't automatically imply that you have an actionable path in getting what's legally yours. Besides that, the Internet hasn't nearly eradicated the inherent information and attention asymmetry between consumers and companies employing people full time to make sure they end up on top for every interaction you have with them.
Consumer protection regulations, especially those regarded trading and credit, cast a very long shadow (ray of sunlight?) you're possibly unaware of, but still immensely benefit from.
Obviously there are diminishing returns and unintended/negative effects to consumers too sometimes, but throwing protections out completely in favor of a "pure free market" doesn't do these asymmetries justice.
It's very easy to argue against when the people that most want to violate the rules have congress in their back pocket. I personally prefer being actually able to breathe the air and not work 70 hours a week with no benefits.
I read his comment as an attempt to add nuance; people paralyzed from the neck down have various experiences. For example, in this study [1], only 12% of those with tetraplegy rated their quality of life as poor or very poor
> Please don't trivialize peoples stuggles by offering pithy anecdotes.
I think you're mistaken, I didn't trivialize anything.
If anything's being trivialized, it was the value of quadriplegic people, who some internet rando blithely declared as all being incapable of having a "fulfilling life."
The average American barely knows how to turn their TV on and off. Switching inputs is a scary prospect. Having rabbit ears on your tv is also def a social status signaling thing.
> Having rabbit ears on your tv is also def a social status signaling thing.
That's what I've long suspected. No wonder it's a great opportunity to save/waste money :)
Supposedly in some social classes and age groups, broadcast TV is literally unheard of, with Best Buy promoting TV antennas accordingly ("free cable!") and people suspecting it's a scam or illegal.
reply