HelixDab2

Prosecutors don't coerce people, exactly. It's more a case of, "hey, we're pretty sure we can get a conviction if we go to trial, and if we get a conviction on these charges, we're going to ask for the maximum jail time and/or fines. But if you agree to plead guilty to a lesser charge, you'll spend less time in jail." And TBH, the state usually can convict, since most prosecutors don't like taking weak cases to trial, and the system is pretty heavily tilted in favor of prosecution for multiple reasons.

It's not like, "take this deal or we're going to break all your fingers and kill your mom", but it does lay out the risks of taking a case to trial. I don't think that's coercive by most definitions, any more than your boss telling you that you can either get to work, or they're going to fire you is coercive.

But yeah, the sheer volume of cases that goes through the courts requires plea deals, because otherwise it would take decades for a case to go to trial.

This is... Very confused.

You need to give more information before anyone can even make sense of this question. A public defender isn't a prosecutor; they don't have the ability to have anyone arrested, or prosecuted. The defendant is the client of the public defender, and the public defender is bound by professional ethics to act in the best interests of their client. The public defender is bound by attorney-client privilege, and anything that they were to disclose to the prosecutor would be inadmissible, and potentially grounds to see them sanctioned or disbarred.

So I really can't understand any circumstances here where a defense attorney would be pressuring their client to take a bad deal and somehow threatening their client's mother.

I'm curious how hard it would be for a typical user to chain VPNs together so that my traffic went sequentially through VPNs. In theory it seems like VPN #1 would know that it was connected to my home and VPN #2, so it couldn't tell where data was originating. VPN #2 could see the site that was being accessed and VPN #1, but not me.

I have no idea if it actually works this way in practice through.

Off the top of my head, the only one that I've watched in recent memory was Fallout.

That's okay, I'll ramp up my piracy of Amazon-exclusive shows in 2025 too.

Imagine trying to argue that DUI laws shouldn’t exist because when you have had one beer you’re fine

Eh, except you probably aren't. Depending on the state, your size, the beer, etc., one may be enough to put you over the legal limit.

The big issue is that there's no difference at all between a 3D printer that's used to print cute little toys and useful household gadgets, and one that's used to print a Glock-style frame. It's the same printer. So it's absolutely unreasonable to regulate all 3D printers as though they were firearms, but that's what some states are pushing to do. The second big issue is that the BATF has had regulations for years about what part constitutes a gun, and what parts are unregulated. Now the ATF is changing the rules, and prosecuting people that relied on prior rulings before doing anything.

The ghost gun thing is particularly ridiculous. You've always had the right to make your own firearm, and for decades the BATF has said that if a receiver (or frame, or whatever) is only 80% complete, that it's legally not a firearm (yet). The reason it's an issue now is that it's finally easy enough for a regular person to make their own. Once you start regulating a block of metal--or in the case of New York, a 3D printer--as though it was a firearm, where does it realistically end? If I can pay $20,000 for a Haas 5 axis benchtop CNC mill, then a plan block of aluminum is not a 'gun' since I can easily mill it to be such.

But the point of saying that certain things are dealbreakers is that, outside of those, anything is within the realm of possibility.

Do I prefer people with "extreme" body modifications? Sure. Is that a requirement? No.

With food, maybe I prefer Brazilian steakhouses, but the only thing I really dislike is pasta, sandwiches, and deep-fried everything. I'm not going to exclude Thai, Indian, Ethiopian, or Polish food, just because it's not my favorite kind of restaurant. I'm literally going to be fine with anything that isn't on my dislike list.

I'm curious what areas are seeing the gain in YIMBY; I have a hard time thinking that any of it is coming from La Jolla. And yeah, San Diego really needs more high-density housing. I lived there for a few years in the early 90s, and there really wasn't much at the time.

The problem isn't political will per se, but specifically steamrolling local NIMBYs. The people with the most political power and will tend to push high density housing out of more desirable areas and into less desirable areas. If you wanted to, for instance, but a 100 unit building in Ukrainian Village or Wicker Park in Chicago, you'd have a really stiff fight on your hands from local property owners who want to keep their neighborhood all brownstones. OTOH, if you want to demo a square block near Garfield Park and build there--and I wouldn't recommend doing that--you'll have the local alderman holding a golden shovel for the groundbreaking.

It's really not that simple.

You can, for instance, buy land and build your own home. But if you do that, you're likely going to end up paying prices that are very comparable--or much, much higher!--to the prices you would pay to get the mass-produced homes from one of a few companies that are building massive sprawl. Those companies have economies of scale working on their side; they have limited floor plans, and have more control over the cost inputs, because they can negotiate bulk pricing. If you break up the 'cartels', then you're suddenly dealing with much, much more custom homebuilding.

(FWIW, I'm currently looking into custom homebuilding, so I've got a pretty decent idea on what some of the costs will be for even a fairly modest home where all I really want is a shell that's stub plumbed and has a breaker box.)

The price-fixing cartels refers to rent specifically, rather than sales. And yes, there is a shortage of units for sale, and that is due largely to market forces. For instance, if I have a house right now that I still have 25 years of mortgage on, my mortgage is probably at a very low rate. Selling that home and buying a new one would mean a new mortgage, at a higher rate, which means bigger monthly payments. This is a problem that older people are running into right now; their homes are too big now that their kids are gone, but they can't afford the new mortgage rates.

Even without rental software suggesting market values for landlords, it's very easy to look at comparables in your general area to set your own rates close to what other people have their at. Similarly, if you list a property at $X, and get 200 queries in a single day, you are likely to set your prices higher because you know that you're listing lower than average. (I sold a car like that; I got 50+ inquiries in just a few hours, because I'd set the price lower than market rate.)

And in places there’s actually a shortage

...Which actually is most places.

IIRC, the gov't is restricted right now, and can't build more without a change in the law. And sure, let's change that. But you're also going to need to change local zoning restrictions that prevent high density housing from going into certain residential areas.