That’s some third world stuff right there. This of course should be illegal. She’s taking a public resource (street parking), privatizing it by occupying it with her RV and then charging rent for it. Godspeed if you live on the street where she does this.
My gut reaction is that (A) yes, it's an improper exploitation of public resources, and also (B) the severity of depends a bit on whether anyone else wants to use the space, varying between "hell no" versus "who cares".
With respect to (B), the article says:
> on the street in the East Meadow neighborhood of Palo Alto
Perhaps a Palo Alto native can chime in, but my remote map-searching suggests she's putting those RVs in areas [0] (18,20,21,28) where it seems reasonable for other people to complain, as opposed to some disued access road.
Fabian Way is an office/industrial area near the major 101 freeway with wide streets and plenty of room for the RVs. Seems entirely reasonable to park RVs there. The surrounding office buildings have acres of empty parking lots.
I can see if they stay a long time or are broken down and it becomes a shanty town that would be a problem, but given the problem of stupidly high rents pricing people out of homes, this seems a reasonable solution. City could lease an empty office building and allow cars/RVs in the parking lot with services like security, showers and social services in the office building.
I was ready to agree with you but then you went to blame her and not the economic environment that made this viable—even desirable compared to alternatives. I could never imagine paying for one of these things unless I was in a truly desperate position. It's the zeroth responsibility of government to keep people from
being desperate by providing better alternatives. Both because of empathy but also because desperate people have nothing to lose and people with nothing to lose are a powder keg waiting for a spark. This woman should have no customers because there's an alternative better than living in a RV with no plumbing.
For what she’s charging you could easily afford an apartment somewhere that isn’t Palo Alto.
I get what you’re saying but I think you’re going too far in the other direction. Some people are okay with a “bohemian” lifestyle and want to live on the beach in Venice or Palo Alto or whatever and will use exploitative means to do so.
apparently the other option, as seen in the comments, is that the government bulldoze the houses on that same street to build a highly dense row of flophouses
like I said elsewhere, just move where you can afford. wherever that is, it's probably a few decades away from being some future generation's dream home
The other option would be more like, incumbent Palo Alto single family homeowners can sell their homes at a huge premium to developers who want to build multi-family homes there to satisfy the obvious demand for more housing.
Everyone who lives in a house on a piece of land is privatising a public resource. Yes, it should be illegal, but equally Prop 13 should never have been passed.
Technically almost every white collar business traveler is working in the US illegally if you strictly apply the letter of the law. Let’s say you come here for two days of meetings and you are coding or doing some analysis on the third day before you fly home. You’ve now violated your business visa. The Trump administration can start enforcing the law like that and we’ll be even more screwed, because absolutely no non-US company will build anything if business travel to help spin up the office or plant is practically impossible.
And the same in other places. I’ve traveled to Europe many times without a work visa. I go to meetings, talk yo people and yes, write a bit of code. It’s what everyone does.
Unless you're being paid a US wage by a US company this is practically impossible to discover, other than by raiding the office/factory like they did at Hyundai.
This is referred to as tayloring and it is not allowed. Furthermore you have to have the experience for the job from before you started working for the sponsoring employer, so tayloring can only target your prior experience, not what you learn on the job.
Seconded. If you want to learn about the basics of race cars in a pop sci way while being told an entertaining story then How To Build A Car is a great book and a very easy read.
It’s a valid point of view. That said, for most homeowners it is as simple as: My house is multiples More expensive than my next expensive asset. Loosing all the equity in my home will affect my lifestyle and financial future negatively, a lot. I will therefore continue to vote against whatever brings home values down.
There really isn’t an easy and elegant way out where you neither pay off the haves nor pitch the have nots majority against the haves.
Yup, and that's why it's so hard to get housing policy changed. To make it harder, I'd wager that homeowners, proportionately, lobby and vote more than renters do.
You only win here if you placate the homeowners, and a surefire way to do that is by making them whole when you whack 20% off their home's resale value. Maybe there are better ways, but I'm having trouble thinking of them.
I think a lot of teams will wrestle with the existing code review process being abused for quite a while. A lot of people are lazy or get into tech because it’s easy money. The combination of LLMs and a solid code review process means you can submit slop and not even be blamed for the results easier than ever.
Yup, we bought a new base model Corolla in 2016 and there’s no sensible way to upgrade or get something nicer. We put 70k miles on it in 9 years. We’ve looked into upgrading more than once, we could easily afford it, but anything that would be a true upgrade (bigger and nicer) is just such a ridiculous waste of money given how inflated car prices have been since Covid. Add to that that the nicer car will then also be much more expensive to keep on the road…and it just makes no sense.
It’s crazy, yet so predictable, that while the system tries to bankrupt individuals for torrenting a single book or movie in this case the excuse “it was just to train an LLM” will fly. Imagine a private individual would argue that in court.
Why do you highlight that the theocracy "believes in jihad" and not that the theocracy has issued a religious decree opposing weapons of mass destruction?
