Ironically that has meant it’s hard to unsubscribe from the New York Times except in California.
I just don't understand people placing the blame on you when it should be on your company. Most people in the world are just trying to keep their job - you did it. It wasn't something illegal, it was something that if you didn't do, you would have risked your job and then someone else would have done it anyway.
Genuine question. Not sure how I'd feel.
I think it's silly for a municipality to lie (by omission?) in their own press announcements.
Edit: I see others with similar thoughts from further down the scroll
The advent of dumpsters was similarly hailed there, though almost no other cities in the US throw their trash on the sidewalk.
Even if the seller in X does not have a presence in Y, and so you might think Y has no jurisdiction, purposefully conducting business within a state is sufficient to allow Y to assert jurisdiction in regards to that business.
They didn't here because for them as representatives of NYC that's all they are speaking to.
Technical pedantry like this just displays poor language and social skills.
However, in this case it’s because NYC law is typically allowed under NY state law to be stronger (but not weaker) than any corresponding state law.
how: by declaring it a law in that area
Course, one should never underestimate the value of a benevolent dictator...
This drives me nuts to read, because it’s usually the same pattern.
Rule -> lobbyists descend -> politicians cave -> carve out that takes away the whole point of the rule -> everyone declares victory
That is why regulation is so important.
I've found the person who lives in California lol, no it does not work that way.
[1] https://collegeplaceapartments.managebuilding.com/Resident/p...
Again: this is NYC’s official website. It might (as a stretch) be a “lie by omission” on a national newspaper’s website, but this is a website that is solely dedicated to NYC itself.
In a world where the California law exists, and the New York Times has been used as an example of the success of that law for years already, claiming some sort of moral victory with the "landmark" qualifier is objectively wrong.
Does any of this matter? No, but I like arguing about it.
(I like arguing too. Nothing wrong with that. I think in this case it suffices that they’re regulations in different states with relatively different political histories, even if the political valence of the two is somewhat similar. I would agree if this was a “landmark” change for Irvine, CA.)
Tech workers had a time where unionization and getting a voice in our companies was very much on the table, and the biggest voices among us shouted down the others in the name of rockstar salaries and free beer at the office. The "top contributors" at huge companies were scared shitless that they might have to accept a wage too much like the REST of their software engineer coworkers. The horror.