MadManE

Sure, I'm all for a test that can determine your actual capabilities on the fly. What is that?

I agree that the "why" isn't that important (or at all), but what is the alternative?

They weren't proving that they were stoned while driving. Before, being stoned at all was illegal. Different charge, different enforcement.

I agree 100%. This is not an insurmountable problem. But we have so many fanatical supporters of marijuana that no laws can be passed that would possibly limit its use.

So what's the test for that? Are you ok with giving police the authority to draw blood on a whim?

Basically, we either accept an invasive test, or we can't enforce the law. Which is 100% different than what it was before.

You're probably right. It's a little over the top editorializing, but it's making the point.

I travel quite a bit, so when I come back it's a very stark difference for me. My wild guess is that it's the boiling frog situation: it's a slow change, but it effects a big difference over time.

On a side note, pot is the #1 thing that people want to talk about when I tell them where I'm from. In their eyes, CO == pot.

Everything about enforcing driving stoned has changed. The stuff stays in your system too long to have a convenient test like alcohol does. So now you effectively have no way to prove whether or not someone was breaking that law.

>It's actually quite easy to find renters who are looking for non-smokers

Sure, I can find exactly the place I want to live - as long as I'm willing to pony up the cash.

>drinking, something objectively FAR more harmful than smoking ... weed

This is a weird argument to me. I'm making statements about how other people using affects me, and this is talking about how my using affects me.

The change was very drastic between pre-legalization and a year after. It was already medically legal when I moved here, and I didn't notice it at all, except of course right around the dispensaries.

I do find it funny that everyone here is jumping to find excuses for why it's not that big of a deal. I'm providing my experience, and my opinion on it. It's not all happiness and sunshine.

I'm not even saying that it should be illegal again. I'm not realizing any benefit from it, so I'm leaving. Why am I being downvoted for it?

I understand that it's illegal to smoke outdoors. But in the same way that it's illegal to speed on the highway - nobody really cares until they need to meet a ticket quota.

The largest part of the problem is my apartment complex. The ratio of stoners to non is pretty high, so the smoke just soaks into everything. I live near Glendale, but it's the same everywhere I go. I'm aggressively trying to find a new job outside of the state.

Another minor issue is the smell of the grow (ware)houses. There's about a 5 mile stretch on 25 that reeks of them on my way to and from work every day. Same on the east side of 70.

Sure, the tax money is nice for some people. But I see zero benefit from it, and a lot of annoyances.

I live in Denver, and I hate the legalization. To be clear, I have nothing against people using drugs, and in an ideal state all drugs would be legal. But now, that's all that Colorado is: one big haze of pot smoke. I can't get away from the smell anywhere. Every time I leave and come back, I have a mild allergic reaction to the smoke, and have to live with perpetual congestion.

If I could get away from the effects of other people smoking, then I would be a huge supporter. But as it stands, we might as well be back when smoking cigarettes everywhere was commonplace.

I would venture that it has something to do with Alibaba and not really a lot to do with Yahoo.

Yes, it's a good financial call, but it puts all of the control in someone else's hands.

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I don't think that comparing anywhere to San Francisco yields many meaningful results, though. It's pretty much an outlier no matter how you look at it.

I would hazard to say that the legalization of pot has more to do with these troubles than anyone wants to admit to. It draws in people who subscribe to that lifestyle from a huge surrounding area (increasing demand for housing and supply of labor).

I'm not sure that equilibrium is really something that is in the cards here, anyway. The job market is just one piece of the puzzle, and the horrific city planning isn't doing anyone any favors.

Needless to say I'm aggressively looking for other places to be.

The reason that I heard was something about OpenGL. I was very disappointed about this, mostly from what implications it has on the future of their other games.

I agree with this, but I don't think that it accounts for everything. For example, my experience in Denver is that wages are below national average, but cost of living is much higher. The consensus that gets spouted here is that the opportunity to live near the mountains is great enough to offset whatever monetary discrepancy there is.

It's a little terrifying that this needs to be said. We are now operating under the assumption that if you are white, then your life can't be bad in any way and you have money to burn.

I guess the propaganda has worked.

I think the problem is that you're assuming that safety rating == safety.

The big deal is to make sure that the companies are able to operate and pass the safety checks with a sufficiently high mark. Since those are based on the existing vehicles, there is no reason to redesign everything to get the same rating at the end.

When you use real money, things are cheaper.

Instead of simply measuring volume of all content created, I would like to see a measure of high quality content created. I think that sharing of high quality content leads to a higher demand for it, while sharing of low quality content leads to lower demand. So things like the practice of putting a single good song on an album would overall decrease demand, showing an overall drop in revenue for those companies.

>You must live in a very sad, homogeneous world then.

And he is lamenting that fact. How sad for you that you take it as a personal insult that this person's observations don't match your ideal.

I don't think you're disproving his comment. The fact that your mother was awesome doesn't mean that women like her are common.

It's interesting to see this juxtaposed with the story about extreme poverty dropping globally:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10352189

This is pretty amazing. Great job.

Hey, a fool and his money. . .

Seems like a growth market to me.

My 2011 Jetta was built in Hamburg, according to the VIN plate.

I also spent more on video games in the last year than it costs. What's your point? That it's so cheap he should just buy it, even if there are better, cheaper tools out there? That seems like a waste to me.

This is simply a matter of training people that you interact with. If you treat your own time as valuable and don't immediately respond to everything, eventually everyone else will come to think of your time as valuable also.

The trick is to never respond immediately on media that you don't want it expected from. It has the random reinforcement effect attached to it, so if they get you once, they'll always expect it.

DIA was built so far away due to complaints of noise from the locals. The distance was intentional, however dumb.

This is advice that is widely ignored, but incredibly important. Doing what you want in life is vastly more rewarding than doing something just because you're expected to.

>free peanuts/almonds

Is this really a selling point? A bag of $0.50 nuts to accompany a $500.00 ticket?

I agree. I had an interview ask this, and it was essentially solving a problem that one of their clients had presented to them. And they needed it within a week.

It felt very much like they were just exploiting applicants for crowd-sourced ideas.