Simple: don't own a vehicle with this capability.

Much like owning a home without an HOA attached, it is becoming harder and harder to meet this requirement.

It also seems to conflict with `right-to-repair` laws if the capability is legally required.

>Much like owning a home without an HOA attached, it is becoming harder and harder to meet this requirement.

The near universal proliferation of owner's associations and management groups and whatnot for developments larger than ~1ac (the EPA threshold, some states/towns have lower) is something you can lay at the feet of the Clean Water Act and it's implementation and precedents over the following decades.

The exact area of the buildings, the driveways, the community park and gazebo, etc, etc, are necessary features of the site plan that makes the math that is required to meet stormwater/environmental requirements. And and some legal entity has to be responsible for that in perpetuity. Enter the HOA. This is also why HOAs often won't allow you to expand your driveway or add a non-permeable patio, it could (prob not, but still) ruin the environmental calculations they're responsible for enforcing as a condition.

I'm not nearly as familiar with car regulatory stuff but I would bet a lot of money that they're using OTA telematics to check some sort of compliance box...

I believe it was Strongtowns reporting a few months back that HOAs are generally being driven by developers, the only folks with (a) land to build in bulk; (b) capital, relationships, and experience to get fully through permitting in bulk; (c) building a substantial fraction of SFH.

Strongtowns is happy to follow the money and incentives on all sorts of other issues. Why do they just throw up their hands and say "it's the developers" on this issue?

Developers don't do anything that costs money, like set up an HOA, without a reason. The developers create the HOA because you need your >1ac residential development to pass stormwater permitting. While you theoretically could make each individual .25ac parcel you're putting a house on compliant it's infinitely cheaper to just ignore all that, grade everything toward the road, dig a ditch, send the contents of the ditch through your stormwater treatment features, build in a little margin to those items, show the permitting authority the numbers that prove it passes with flying colors and when some jerk says "but what if X Y Z changes" you point to the excess you built in and tell them to GFY.

Now, where it really gets evil is when you start really pinching pennies or where the rules change over the course of the process making your numbers not work. Say you've got a lot of grade, a lot of rainfall, a lot of stormwater you gotta "treat". Well, you start adding rules to the HOA. Require certain parts of the lots remains grass or planter or whatever. Disallow patios, but do allow wood decks because the municipality considers those pervious, etc, etc. Or maybe the results you've got are marginal but you throw the bureaucrats a bone by saying you'll disallow car-ports and sheds in the HOA rules to prevent people from adding impervious surface. Or maybe you're uphill of some wetlands but not close enough to be regulated by default you promise to disallow working on cars and require people pick up their pet waste and not use lawn fertilizer or some other laundry list of certain things in order to make the local town's wetlands people comfortable not raising objection and claiming jurisdiction.

And of course, however these rules and plans shake out, the HOA is responsible for implementation in perpetuity.

Not just storm water, but also things like maintenance of 'common areas', roads, and snow removal. Many small municipalities are budget strapped and don't want to be responsible for plowing/surfacing the new little 1/8 of a mile culdesac the developer created to build their 'neighborhood'.

In carving up the 5 acres the developer purchased, the 30 houses they squeezed in left some remainder that wasn't buildable or odd shaped, so this now becomes a lame 'park' or some other space that requires maintenance.

I read all my local municipal meeting minutes, and at least around here, permitting and ordinances control all the environmental/nuisance stuff, so I can't really explain why HOAs go beyond the collective expenses into the draconian rules.

>so I can't really explain why HOAs go beyond the collective expenses into the draconian rules.

Grass is really good at filtering/absorbing/treating stormwater so you might have to force everyone to keep their lawns lawn because the way you've got the lots graded you need that little bit of extra because it lets you make your "shit parcel" where the basin will go a little smaller and squeeze one extra house into the development.

Beyond that I think what a lot of it comes down to is that local governments are invariably run by a lot of the same kinds of busybodies that HOAs attract and the way rules are written these days the "normal permitting process" exists only to let the useful idiots think that just about everything isn't discretionary. There's always some gotcha or twistable phrase so everything goes through a special permit or variance of some sort. That opens up all sorts of off the record dealing wherein the developer agrees to throw everything and the kitchen sink into the initial HOA rules and the Karens in government make sure those things are in there before deciding how to exercise their discretionary approval.

There’s no reason that sort of compliance needs an HOA. Most places already have building codes enforced by mandatory government inspections for major renovations.

It really isn't. FB Marketplace is literally awash in perfectly serviceable vehicles that don't and can't phone home. For the budget conscious among us it's also significantly cheaper to buy a "clapped out" used older car and refresh the drive train than buying new or late model.

Besides the irony of a privacy-conscious user using facebook to buy a car... those "perfectly-serviceable vehicles" are 1. no longer manufactured, and 2. will not last forever.

Unless a new age of unconnected cars becomes a reality in the near future, I don't see this being a long-term solution.

"will not last forever" doesn't comport with observed reality to date. There are literally model A's still on the road. Barring true oddities there doesn't appear to be a model of production vehicle that has gone extinct at any point in automotive history. Anyway, three of my cars are older than I am, and I am not a young man. Buying into their shit is optional.

Finding parts for older cars is a very real concern, aside from a handful of cars that are very popular with enthusiasts.

So pick a vehicle you can get parts for if you're worried, you've literally highlighted the solution to the problem you're claiming exists.

> How do you think right-to-repair intersects with cars?

Strongly. You don't own the thing you purchased if you can't legally repair it or legally obtain the knowledge to repair it. At beat you're paying an overpriced lease and granting a liability waiver.

You own something if you can sell it.

I tend to agree. In my mind, it would be pretty cost efficient to put a builtin- system diagnostic utility in all new vehicles that provide at least moderately good tooling for the ODB. T

I'm not sure where you see velocity. The last major innovation in arethmetic was the introduction of zero when the hindu-arabic numeral system was adopted by medieval western societies. Likewise english grammar isn't exactly a hotbed of churn.

i'm confused by your reply, sorry. what part of my comment are you referring to?

if this is a response to "world is moving fast", i didn't mean "arithmetic is moving fast". i meant technology, the economy, geopolitics, etc. which inevitably changes the learning environment, the home environment, motivation, etc.

"which inevitably changes the learning environment"

This, right here, is the most commonly repeated trope in "tech" circles whenever the topic of education comes up. It's infrequently questioned at all, much less challenged outright, despite there being literally no foundational shifts in any of the individual curricula that a basic education is constructed from. So from an academic standpoint the world isn't actually moving much at all. It's this rhetoric that has lead the charge for tech infiltrating the classroom, a shift which has produced measurably poorer educational outcomes.

>This, right here, is the most commonly repeated trope in "tech" circles whenever the topic of education comes up.

just for context, i am a teacher. i am speaking from my experience, not repeating a trope.

Significantly less. Wanted a job? Walk through any neighborhood being built with a tape measure in your pocket. You'd have a job doing something before you made it past the 4th house. Had a car? Delivering food paid enough to afford a modest apartment.

"Able to work and wanting a job you would like" probably meant 30 % unemployment is realistic, though?

Half the population is female and doing much unpaid labor, so I find this kind of numbers convincing.

Oh, I just noticed: And unpaid labour, pun intended.

"would like" is pretty wild in this context. The number of individuals who have had a job they truly enjoyed is a rounding error in recorded history. I'll save us both the indignity of repeating tired boomer tropes around modern attitudes towards work.

It really would, most boomers seem to also think living alone while not having a girlfriend is very odd and shocking (still). Most worldviews do not and will not add up to reality.

I think it's distasteful to screen ethically questionable business practices with segments of the disabled community. If this product was being marketed towards the need of developmentally disabled individuals I feel like there would be less grounds for criticism, however meeting those needs in no way excuses outright fabrication of marketing claims aimed at the broader consumer market, and especially children.

What data might that be? I've looked and there doesn't appear to be any authoritative source of long-term data for either # of reported foodborne illness outbreaks or # of individuals sickened in this way per year, either of which would clearly demonstrate a dip in sickness rates if industrial-scale food production does, in fact, result in cleaner production.

"There are downsides to the consolidation of food suppliers, to be sure, but food safety is probably better for it."

Nope, quite the contrary. By necessity consolidation means fewer individual processing facilities, which in turn means any single facility services a larger percentage of the market. Given fixed odds of any given single processing facility being cross-contaminated by a dirty shipment, by necessity that contamination event will impact a larger volume of product due to bulk mixing. Additionally this cross-contamination event will impact a larger portion of the market due to now-commonplace multi-state product distribution.

I frequently hear "efficiency" touted in the context of the agriculture industry, always by individuals who have no involvement with it, and have to wonder what, exactly, they believe they are cheerleading. A loaf of bread is not significantly cheaper now than it was 50 years ago, so no obvious benefits to the consume accrue from this notional efficiency. What has changed is rural bankruptcy and suicide rates have both skyrocketed, with the consolidation of the AG industry consistently implicated as the primary driver of both.

Neat. Hire an intern to prompt the "CEO" as needed. Problem solved.

This is one of those rejoinders that tries to be clever but really, really isn't. The "intern as fake CEO" is left holding the bag because it's their signature on contracts and other legal documents. The idea of puppet CEOs to fraudulently dodge accountability existed well before LLMs became a thing. Courts see right through that kind of scheme plus the "intern" is likely to turn coat against the mastermind to save their own skin at the first sign of trouble.

If you think CEOs are the primary legal signatories for their company you might need to spend some time away from garage band startups. Companies maintain entire legal departments for a reason.

If the paperwork says the intern is the CEO, then the intern is the CEO, regardless of how much the intern's agent's github says otherwise.

Yep. You're starting to catch on. Same functionality, significant cost savings for the organization.

The intern might be convinced to do something other than what the bot says.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of folks would gleefully avoid rocking the boat if handed a job this cushy. If they do flake out you could ask if anyone in facilities would like to take a break from emptying trashcans...

Then the board can fire that CEO?

And they are. I read somewhere a few days ago that France is vacuuming up academics and advanced students that have been displaced by various recent policy changes that have proven to be hostile towards academia and research.

As a former academic scientist, I suspect it's not gonna work out like they think it will--the process will self select for mostly lemons.

Really? Dudes are catching felony raps for web scraping and you dont see how any of this is felonious?

That others have been treated unfairly doesn't make this instance also one that should be overreacted to.

True. Where we appear to disagree is that any overreaction has taken place. If anything I'm deeply dissatisfied that charges haven't been filed.

While I think those calling for charges know not what precedent they are trying to set.

Oh I am very clear about what precedents I want set. I want the C-suite, board, and major shareholders of any corporate entity that meaningfully deviates from legality to face all of the same consequences a private individual would.

Who got charged with a felony for scraping?

Aaron Swartz, for one.

Was not scraping and not charged for that

On the subject of gatekeeping in the climbing community there's also the minor issue of getting threatened with violence by locals when trying to document routes.

Really? In 30 years of climbing I’ve never run into territorial locals. Surfing, on the other hand, can be pretty hostile.

Grandmother Mountain boulders in western NC, me and a buddy had to cut a climbing trip short after getting into some shit with a four pack of the locals over me taking photos of some of the problems there. Nobody got hurt but it was every bit as hostile as any encounter with the surfing locals I'd ever had in the Outer Banks.

Vedauwoo Wy, a local friend made me leave my camera at his place and basically warned me not to talk to or even make eye contact with any of the locals at some of the back country crags we were going to. No encounter there but the stories I've heard told (and believe) are something else. Same for Wild Iris near Lander.

Out of curiosity, how long ago were those incidents? Seems crazy for such well-known areas with guidebooks and extensive documentation on mountain project.

The most recent was ~15 years ago, but in my experience some shit never changes. Surfers are still the same belligerent assholes on their favorite local breaks they where 30 years ago so I doubt much has changed in these places either.

There's a crag in MA where the access is specifically conditioned on the crag not having a guidebook or the routes being recorded in an online database.

I don't know of any violence occurring over any of this, but I know there have been access issues and closures in the past.