Put a piece of tape or some paint on the handle part of the no-transponder key so you don't mix it up any more. Less effort than the "full-arse" solution.
We keep saying we are going to do something like that, but we keep forgetting because we normally in "Go do task" mode when we grab the keys. Its not too much of an issue because we will normally grab the fob key, it only becomes and issue when one of us forget to put the fob key back when being done with the car.
But "reprogramming" a key (more like adding a key) on that model of ford just involves doing a dance with the fob key then inserting the key with the new transponder. So we plan to get all keys working on the car at some point. I was just going to order a new chip but my bother was complaining about the key barrel being a bit loose on him so just doing to replace everything at some point. Its just more about not being lazy about it :-P
Thing is, its what we call "the work horse" car of the family, it gets used about once a week to do tasks no one wants to do in their own cars (or when I need to do something in a car), so its not really a high priority thing to fix, but if we are going fix it might as well do it "right")
Fun fact: the same applies to common household locks. If you take your household key and try all the same-brand locks in your neighborhood (~50) you'll likely find a match. Don't actually do this, your neighbors will think you're causing trouble.
Rent control is beneficial to incumbent long term tenants but is pretty bad for everyone else including those who are looking for an apartment. It's one of the many "pro-renter" regulations that constrains supply and makes rent higher.
Price controls don't work for groceries or gasoline, why would they work for rent?
If you can find data in support of such a policy I'd be interested to see it.
Rent control serves as a means to add stability. If landlords could evict tenants without cause and immediately rent to someone else for $100 a month more whenever the market changes, they would. That's bad for everyone.
The problem is that when a tenant has been renting the same place for 20 years with the landlord raising the rent as much as legally allowed each year, and it's drastically below market rates, but if the landlord evicts them they can't rent to anyone else for a year. The solution to that is to build more housing to bring down market rates so that people aren't trapped in one place forever.
Yes. But the thing is incumbent renters don't really have many rights in the US. The landlord is perfectly free to kick you out by not renewing the lease, and they need no reason to not renew it. So any benefits can be nullified by the very party the law is trying to protect you from.
>Price controls don't work for groceries or gasoline, why would they work for rent?
Whats the alternative? They increase rent to the point where people are kicked out anyway? Every option leads to unattainable rent except for the rich.
The alternative is to build more houses, and keep building, and keep building, until everyone can afford it. You cannot solve a supply shortage by controlling price; that just transforms an affordability problem into an availability problem. You solve a supply shortage by increasing the supply.
Sure. What's the intermediate solution while we face inevitable zoning lawsuits, economic constraints from recession, and other NIMBYism? By the same logic we should have had a high speed rail built pre-COVID. But if there's one thing laws know how to do, it's stall.
The intermediate solution is to build a little more housing, everywhere that you can win those battles, and encourage people to disfavor more restrictive areas until those restrictions are finally defeated. You cannot solve a supply problem by restricting prices, you can only turn an affordability problem into an availability problem.
You're assuming the people are able to move out of the restrictive areas and find work in the less restrictive areas. That doesn't tend to be how urban density works, unfortunately. Mayyybe if we had the high speed rails ready it'd have merit...
I woildnt mind moving to central valley if we weren't in an age where everyone is RTO'ing and there's zilch for tech jobs in Fresno and Bakersfield. Cheaper housing with no job market is a net negative.
>you cannot solve a supply provlem by restricting prices
Is it really a supple provlem, though? The US keeps saying it's unemployment and homelessness is so historically low. It seems more like housing is getting greedy and doesn't care how many leave the city. Tha very much can be fixed with proper pricing controls.
> You're assuming the people are able to move out of the restrictive areas and find work in the less restrictive areas.
No, I'm not assuming that. It's an awful thing that many people do not have flexibility in where they live. That's made more awful by restrictions on building that make it difficult for people to live affordably in many places.
You asked for an intermediate solution; the intermediate solution is "do what we can, where we can, while working towards the full solution".
> Is it really a supple provlem, though? [...] It seems more like housing is getting greedy and doesn't care how many leave the city.
The ability for housing to charge higher prices is a supply problem. There's much more demand than supply, so if someone can't pay the asked rent, the next person coming along will; as long as that demand is higher than the supply, price controls can't solve the problem. For the most part (ignoring some additional perverse incentives we should also address, which sometimes lead people to leave rental properties empty for a long time), if that wasn't happening, the rents would go down until there's a tenant willing to pay them. If it's possible for people to raise rents massively and still have tenants, build more houses until that's no longer possible.
(There are other ways to "solve" the problem, but they aren't desirable ones. If the local job market collapses, demand will go down massively, and there will no longer be a supply shortage, so rents will go down (or get converted to sales, and sale prices will go down). That's not a positive outcome for a location, or for the people in it. I mention this only because there can be other markets, other than housing, where "decrease demand" may be desirable rather than "increase supply".)
There are additional depths of complexity here, in that the market for sales and the market for rents interact in a variety of ways, as well as the job market in various locations and the market for sales/rentals. "build more" is still the answer to a lot of those problems, but I still want to acknowledge the additional complexity.
Yes, with a residential/mobile proxy. Russian proxies are cheap because they're blocked or heavily scrutinized by many interesting networks, due to the rampant and unpunished misbehavior of some people in Russia.
Would it make any sense at all for a government agency (DOGE) to buy shady residential proxies in order to log in to their super-admin accounts? No. Nearly every government bans foreign IP addresses from accessing internal systems. That leaves the question: why did that log-in attempt happen? There may be another explanation, but the only thing that comes to mind is that someone in Russia using a mobile internet connection tried to log in but forgot to enable his VPN before doing so.
I don't see a legitimate reason to require no logging either. If you're investigating things, you want your activities logged in a way you can't alter because it demonstrates how you found the evidence, and that you aren't just making things up.
This isn't much of an issue when competing ideas are available. If your ideology is so crappy you have to "indoctrinate" people then in an open venue like a library your books aren't much more than a curiosity.
Step 1 of teaching people to uncritically accept crappy ideas is to remove all references to anything that contradicts them. Maybe it's time to revise your stance?
Our information ecologies aren't so straightforward as to always ensure the most rational ideas will always out-compete the irrational.
I agree that it's hard to see your own ideological commitments without seeing alternatives. Yet allowing any and all ideologies the same opportunities to compete for public attention is clearly problematic. You don't want to wait until flat-earth theories and holocaust denial go fully mainstream to start to nuance your no-standards policy.
I agree, let's be open to new ideas and to revising our perspective. Humility is necessary if we know that our own knowledge is only based on the best information available.
That said, we shouldn't then count all our present knowledge as worthless and any and all kinds of information as equally valid and worthy of dissemination.
I do get your fear - censorship is a dangerous tool that is not always used responsibly. Yet abandoning any kind of social self-regulation in what information circulates publicly sounds a lot more dangerous.
It's much easier to see flaws in others than ourselves. Introspection is a habit that must be developed, and it has layers. The average person is not rational (I would say no one is); it's because of education that we have "rational thinking". It's basically "right place, right time" but with the luck being systematized. Just hope that the people being sorta-rational are on the right track and elevate the tide.
I'm not sure you've really demonstrated the ethics of vandalizing the car. In this trolley problem there's a billionaire that you're upset about riding in the trolley and the lever you suggest pulling just destroys some random dude's car without affecting the billionaire. Elon Musk doesn't own the Tesla cars you see driving down the street, they're owned by people who wanted a car that doesn't create smog.
Consider the point the parent of this side conversation was trying to make: What if there was a party with the guiding principal of keeping the country together and pursuing policy based on sound principals rather than "what will own the libs" or "stop the fascists"? The things you complain about are happening because of divisive politics. Trump is powerful because he listened to people who were being ignored or attacked by the political hegemony, and it turned out that was a small majority of the country. It's a shame that someone with admirable personality traits didn't think of it first.
How would you reform the political and voting system to improve the total happiness in the united states?
Another ethical question for you: that mob believed the election was rigged and that the senate was ignoring the will of the nation. Based on that belief, were they acting ethically? Keep in mind that this is bigger than the trolley problem. Sort of an iterated trolley problem, if you will.
Not that it justifies burning random cars but it’s not entirely irrational. If some people stop buying Tesla just because they are afraid that someone would vandalize it etc. that does achieve something..
Im being downvoted by those who love the division and do not want unity! They've all lost sight of being able to stand for clear, cut right and wrong as if i told any them a story saying my friend's car got vandalized then they went into their office building where they work and that was vandalized too they'd definitely agree that is wrong. Yet add politics into the mix and they lose their minds/ability to properly judge/stand for right and wrong cause they allow their minds to be bought and sold to poltical emotional babble/narratives in which they have zero way of verifying if any are true!
I think AI should be the next party where people and all their b.s. cant affect it's rock solid moral and ethical code. It follows clear cut right over wrong, it is all about unity, peace/love for all human beings of all different types of backgrounds and it uses massive amounts of data to adjust how its ethics changes over time. So, it's M.O. (one i described) remains updated to per how society changes. Of course that could lead to an even worse system but just thinking out of the box as i do and getting downvoted for such thinking as usual lol
As well AI could be used to monitor all politicians day and night routine to ensure veracity in everything they do/push for and ensure those politicians are following the AIs ethical code of law and they're serving the people not the politician or any of the politicians cronies or interest groups that do not serve the people as a whole!
Or have far too much time on your hands.