In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
Given the tone of civil discourse recently, I'm surprised that there aren't more people celebrating the number of celebrities who have lost residences to the fires in the last 72 hours.
I'm sure tons of people on social media are celebrating but in order to read that you'd have to go on social media. Why anyone would do that I have no idea.
I'm sure some idiots are celebrating, but that's just really bad juju and a way to beg for the universe to bitch slap you.
Imagine how many old people who have just lived in these areas for 50+ years, have the house paid off and limited income, are now staring down the barrel of a rebuild with no money to do it with. It's not like every single one of these houses belonged to an A-list celeb. Probably very few of them, in fact.
I don't know how legit the narrative that the insurance companies dropped most of these homeowners in the last 18 months is, but I can absolutely see myself being put in a position where my
The other problem I'm sure people will run into is where the rebuild cost is higher than what they had insurance for. That happened here in Colorado with the Marshall fire a few years ago. Property values and construction and material costs had gone way up and in many cases the insurance coverage people had didn't keep up with it.
I don't know about California, but certainly in Florida its been tough for people to get insurance due to companies leaving the state. It wouldn't surprise if many people were dropped and either didn't get new coverage, or couldn't, or couldn't afford the new coverage.
Joe Biden at the fire presser
Mumble mumble Madame Vide president why don’t you fire away … no pun intended
This is basically why Europe (and particularly Ukraine) have been cuddling him and owning him as if he is just this santa clause to them - just gives them whatever they want. Such a weak and pathetic leader.
I don't know how legit the narrative that the insurance companies dropped most of these homeowners in the last 18 months is, but I can absolutely see myself being put in a position where my insurance company drops coverage and I procrastinate on getting replacement. I love me some procrastination.
Your home insurer obviously can decline to renew, but I'd be surprised if they can terminate during a policy period without cause.
Your home insurer obviously can decline to renew, but I'd be surprised if they can terminate during a policy period without cause.
Where I work, State Farm would have renewed but because ownership changed hands a new policy was needed and they weren't granting any new policies in California. They ended up finding insurance from some company out of New York that was 40k more per year.
Your home insurer obviously can decline to renew, but I'd be surprised if they can terminate during a policy period without cause.
in CA they can terminate if they have transparent guidelines and they stay clear of discrimination.
in these cases they terminated after attempting to increase rates in fire-prone areas, being denied by the Californian regulators, and their internal models telling them the risk was too high for the premium to keep covering.
there is also a double dip mechanism according to which where the state insurance comes in play insurers have to cover a part of the claims related to their market share in the area so basically there is double the risk in keeping policies in fire-prone areas so they don't renew
Are you sure about that? Most policies are year-to-year AFAIK. If they can't get rate increases, they just wait it out and then decline to renew.
yes with terminate I meant no yearly renewal (they also need to tell you 75 days in advance).
was pointing out that in CA they can't even decline renewal easily, they must motivate and justify (albeit with internal models, which they communicate to the regulator, and so on).
still they went through all those hassles in specific areas because risk was becoming insane.
but the narrative is a bit skewed as risk was becoming insane mostly for increases in rebuilding costs and because rates in California were much lower than the American average rather than for "climate change" impacting the models too much (it did to a degree, but not too much).
of the 40-50% increase they need to be able to serve areas like those affected by the fires now, 10-15 comes from going with forward risk rather than historic risk (=climate change), approx 5 for reinsurance costs (which they previously couldn't charge the customer for, they can now with the new regulatory framework), the rest is all building cost increases (inflation and regulation)
What would be a good O/U on the number of monitors Luciom has?
I'd set it at 4.5.
Average number of browser tabs? 386.
interesting rule by the European court of justice where LGBTQ+ groups sued a train operator because you had to declare your gender when buying the ticket, but not to ask for non binary options rather claiming that fender is unnecessary for that exchange so it's an abuse of privacy basically under GDPR (you can't usually require data which isn't strictly necessary to conduct the business transaction in Europe)
I am a little confused here because I end up agreeing on the letter of law and with the initial request by the LGBTQ group but j am so accostumed to them making insane requests that I am like ????
anyway gotta give it to your political opponents when they act right and in this case it looks like they did and achieved a small but still significant victory for privacy which is a right I care about.
keep in mind this isn't a restriction on business activity in any form and train operators are also kinda monopolistic (or at beat oligopolistic) so a modicum of rules to keep them in check is more justified than, say, ordering a bakery to serve customers they dislike
btw the vast majority of your urban planning problems are linked to zoning, which is regulation.
Dude, you clearly don't even understand what I'm talking about. And ya I know zoning is part of it and in the context I'm talking about it's local pols letting developers run wild on countless parcels of what was previously farmland--the result of which is a complete ****show everywhere it's happened. Too many people crammed into too little infrastructure/roads etc. And the overall quality of life is massively diminished. You can't leave the house without running into the constant traffic disaster--in places that used to be considered out in the country lol. Meanwhile the nearby places who kept them(didn't allow clowns to develop willy nilly) in check are still great.
I am a little confused here because I end up agreeing on the letter of law and with the initial request by the LGBTQ group but j am so accostumed to them making insane requests that I am like ????
anyway gotta give it to your political opponents when they act right
Says a lot when any "LGBTQ group" is automatically your political opponent, and it's so shocking to you when they do a single thing you agree with.
Says a lot when any "LGBTQ group" is automatically your political opponent, and it's so shocking to you when they do a single thing you agree with.
no, a LGBTQ group suing for gender issues is usually my political opponent.
this time it was actually a reasonable gender issue though, the train company has no reason to ask for gender
Dude, you clearly don't even understand what I'm talking about. And ya I know zoning is part of it and in the context I'm talking about it's local pols letting developers run wild on countless parcels of what was previously farmland--the result of which is a complete ****show everywhere it's happened. Too many people crammed into too little infrastructure/roads etc. And the overall quality of life is massively diminished. You can't leave the house without running into the constant traffic disast
The funny thing is , regulations are always bad for Luciom.
Zoning etc seem To enter into that category for him .
Then he advocate let free market do its thing and it will in the end better perform in efficiency .
But here is the rub .
The market is -> everyone .
So in one instance , the only people who should earn profits from the economy are the top 1-10% (?) because they are the only one who can make good decisions and so we should give them 100% tax cuts ….
On the other hand we should have no regulations at all because we should expect the bottom 90% would be great at doing great decisions (????) in everything else ….
But we just said tax cut and earning should only be for the top 10% because only they can make great decisions ….
Isn’t there a massive problem there ?
U can’t have it both ways
Dude, you clearly don't even understand what I'm talking about. And ya I know zoning is part of it and in the context I'm talking about it's local pols letting developers run wild on countless parcels of what was previously farmland--the result of which is a complete ****show everywhere it's happened. Too many people crammed into too little infrastructure/roads etc. And the overall quality of life is massively diminished. You can't leave the house without running into the constant traffic disast
This must be an east coast thing.
