Not that your comment is relevant, but why is there a narrative of obstruction when you can visibly see Renee Good wave another truck by moments before she was killed?
The newly released footage is truly a political Rorschach test. It is unbelievable to me that anyone without diminished mental capabilities could believe that exonerates the camera man.
Don't the invested dollars poured into infrastructure that won't yield gains represent a loss of value? Especially if the same investment could have been put to work somewhere more fruitful.
It's (1) a loss of expected value (2) misspent resources.
You spent $X to buy RAM chips, expecting that you could produce $Y with it. But you didn't. So you (1) failed to realize the expected value $Y, and (2) misallocated $X, which in hindsight you would have used differently.
Again, that's all learning that future expectations do not match reality.
The decision/action happened earlier, and is separate from the realization. Attributing the material loss to the realization is misplaced.
The parent comment is talking about outsourced lead battery recycling. What is the middle ground there? I think your very abstract argument about over regulation probably belongs in another thread.
Is the suggestion here to remove environmental regulations that make outsourcing to countries without regulations appealing? I'm not sure what problem that solves. Of course without discussing specific regulations it is hard to argue about anything - maybe there are useless environmental regulations that make lead battery recycling impossible in first world countries? Or maybe your line of reasoning just doesn't make sense, at least in this case. I don't think I'd want to live near a polluting lead battery recycling operation.
A lead battery plant that we can oversee and regulate is better than a polluting one in another country, where we basically export the suffering and damage to them. So policy goals should try to keep it possible and economically viable (with subsidies, bureaucrats who are responsive to community needs, whatever you like) to do recycling in the first world in some way.
Whether any particular regulation is necessary or onerous needs more detailed examinations, and it's easy to say "just have the regulations be as simple as necessary to protect us", but I'm arguing we've gone a little far with zoning regs and studies so that we can't build things as well as we used to. You could also argue that bodies are using these environmental regulations for their own purposes, like keeping property values high or protecting their other investments instead of actual environmental impacts?
(We can also try and spread regulations down the outsourcing chain, but I think that's difficult for other reasons.)
Maybe software updates could contain things users actually want, that provide a competitive incentive for users to choose to buy the phones from specific makers?
Would your parents have picked you up if real time location sharing existed? I understand your story is emotional and personal, but using it as an argument why you want to share your location at all times is a bit of a non-sequitur.
It was more about not knowing where they were, or when they were coming. With technology, children can always know where their parents are, not to mention they are only one text or call away.
You could engage with the article and explain why you don't agree with the argument that is being made - or you could simply leave no comment at all. That is the hidden subtext of the comment you are replying to here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1q7cg7o/minneapolis_ic...
reply