121–130 of 317 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
its almost as if people really shouldnt live inside glorified cubicles… as if they should in something larger. and maybe have a space with grass and also a little accessory structure with a door large enough to fit a vehicle. such a thing doesnt exist unfortunately
My nearby park has tons of space with grass. And why would I want space for a vehicle when I have public transportation that is much faster?
> I'm not even sure what the notarization step was accomplishing: the inventory sheets aren't affidavits. The percentage of people who see the word "notarized" alongside "inventory sheet" and simply give up must be quite high. Notarization accomplishes nothing besides causing a headache. Insurance companies don't make money by paying out claims, you know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they let me insure my stuff for 100x of what it's worth, I lose all the incentive to prevent damage. Even in the legit cases the insurance companies have to account for the "don't worry, it's insured" mindset. Keeping the ceiling on the insurance value is intended to leave at least some of the incentive to prevent the damage with the owner. The insurance companies cannot rely solely on the "don't be careless" cont…
> If they let me insure my stuff for 100x of what it's worth, I lose all the incentive to prevent damage. So what, though? Can't they just adjust the premium to account for that? It's not like they can't do their own modeling of what the item is likely worth -- if they see it's 1% of what you stated, then they can just as well cite you a ridiculous premium so that you wouldn't feel it's worth it. What's wrong with th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What laws do you believe would be more effective a catching and punishing criminals? AFAIK, there is reasonably clear evidence that deterrence has a very low impact on this sort of crime, so laws based on deterring through fear-of-sentence would not seem to be likely to have much effect. What is it that you're proposing/desiring?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If they let me insure my stuff for 100x of what it's worth, I lose all the incentive to prevent damage. So what, though? Can't they just adjust the premium to account for that? It's not like they can't do their own modeling of what the item is likely worth -- if they see it's 1% of what you stated, then they can just as well cite you a ridiculous premium so that you wouldn't feel it's worth it. What's wrong with th…
[deleted]
> For example, if I had a 15 year-old, unremarkable used car but insured it for $1m, then I'd have an incentive to leave it parked (but locked!) in sketchy areas of town in the hopes that it would be stolen.
No, you wouldn't if the premium is high enough (i.e. your net gain from doing so is small enough).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US already incarcerates vastly more people than most comparable nations. And yet this level of incarceration does not seem to have had the effect you want. It seems that you imagine that the crime is somehow intrinsic to the current group of people committing it, and that by removing them from society, their behavior would not recur. While there are arguments for this sort of thing, it is also based on a wilfull…
Explain to me why someone that's been arrested 15 times should be let go to terrorize others. That person that has been arrest 15 times before cannot continue to commit crime if he's behind bars. You don't need to "read" the data to come to this conclusion. People commit crime in large part because they can get away with it. It's not complicated.
The problem is: why is this person doing this, because there are at least two outcomes:
1. we lock them up, and a part of the problem is gone
2. we lock them up, and someone else steps in to do the same thing
From my perspective, there's ample evidence to suggest that #2 is more likely, and thus even if locking them up has some moral weight behind it, it isn't likely to be a solution to crime in general.
It’s outrageous that pawn shops don’t have to eat the loss in California. They have no incentive to check for stolen items.
There are a million reasons why you should never do this, but I would be tempted to use storage unit #3 as the place to keep my land mine collection. Edit: “You have a land mine collection?” No, but after storage unit #2, I’d daydream about starting one.
I imagine it'd be a lot cheaper and legally-viable to store your collection of electronic burglar alarms. Especially if they dial a human when triggered. There are some neat videos out there where people make their own with Arduinos etc.
The "glitter bomb" series is pretty funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo&list=PLgeXOVaJo_...