Allow people to build more housing. It's simple. These rules will help current renters at the expense of future Los Angelenos, make building more housing less desirable for developers, and will let local politicians pretend they solved the issue while actually doing the exact opposite.
Mostly nobody is against building more housing. The big issues, especially in California, are the Water supply issues. The cities largely run at capacity and the water system can't really handle the increased load. Then you have traffic and other safety concerns like electricity. It's not as simple as building more houses, it's a long road of improving infrastructure. I used to date a housing advocate who attended city hall hearings for a non profit, and no one objected, it would always get to close to being approved, then the water guy comes in and they can't do it.
Roughly 80% of developed water use in SoCal is agriculture. Population is a secondary concern when it comes to water use in the area. Severance of riparian rights through eminent domain is looking increasingly appealing.
Most people have no number sense. E.g. the Brian Williams on-air segment where he (and apparently his presumably college-educated staff) thought a $500 million campaign investment by Bloomberg meant he could give every American $1 million. That's not just a simple math error--it's a fundamental lack of numerical intuition about society-scale numbers. Prices are even more complex--a dynamic equilibrium between supply and demand. You can't get people to understand that. You might as well expect them to do jumping jacks while standing on their hands.
You can't lecture people about supply and demand. What you need is an electorate that has correctly aligned gut feelings. You need to socialize people from birth to understand that "if you build more, you'll get more; if you build less, you'll get less." You know how your dad says "there's no such thing as a free lunch?" You need to socialize people at that level.
And this exact play has been run so many times, with the same bad results every single time. My only "hope" would be they would pair this limit with such aggressive housing increases that the overall practical effect of this is mitigated.
If they have access to the last photo ... every photo you ever took was the last photo. Why mess around giving app's permission to surveil/siphon off your photos at all?
Any carte blanche for apps, and apps will go to great lengths to take advantage of that in unexpected ways, and obscure the fact they are doing so.
And privacy losses can never be verifiably reversed.
All most apps need is for you to select photos to upload/import using an Apple supplied photo selector. So they only see and get exactly what you want them to have.
I’m presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the app only gets access to your last photo when the photo picker is launched. It wouldn’t be able to slurp up every photo in the background.
Tariffs are taxes, they are not opposed to raising them, they just won't call them "taxes." It's honestly remarkable how effective they are in reaching their policy goals, because they understand their voter base extremely clearly. They know that their voters largely go off of key words, so by changing those words, one can make them support whatever policy one wants. It is amazing to witness, really.
I'm non-FAANG and I'm so much more productive now. I am a fullstack dev, I use them for help with emails to non tech individuals, analyzing small datasets, code review, code examples.....it is wild how much faster I can develop these days. My job is actually more secure because I can do more, and OWN more mission critical software, vs outsourcing it.
