ellisdewalt

The lenses aren't anything near that of a gopro. Name an app company that has gotten distribution of a hardware product.

If anything, the goal of this article is simply to have 3rd parties clone this idea.

-Nobody else knows that. -That means they can't be used more than half the time. -No, I'm not.

Not sure how it's brilliant. Secondly, it still suffers from that fact that literally everyone is creeped out by a rando staring at them with two cameras. At least a phone is halfway obvious when in use.

Essentially agree 100%. My minor nitpic is that while I'm willing to be cynical almost whole hog including your examples, we even have similar examples that are more dumb and less insidious than yours. E.g, truffles vs mushrooms in the netherlands (one is banned, the other isn't, I'm not aware of one being the uppity fungi vs the hood shroom)

Even in the LSD example, someone using a fancier stationary could be way more guilty than a cheapo two ply. The whole thing is ridiculous in ways the crack vs cocaine thing is relatively less so. If anything, this law encourages lsd to be made on the most portable medium possible. If you claim this too was intentional, then we enter the realm of the ridiculous.

This might sound like splitting hairs, but I'm just advocating to a caveat to cynicism for things once in awhile being just flat out dumb.

Both you and eropple are spot on. I would have admitted both of your points but I'm not as knowledgeable.

The issue is, might_atomic says he is cynical that the reason the law is the case isn't dumb, it's intentional. If we're being cynical, I can think of many ways to be extra punitive against any particular drug you like for any reason. Even if we assume self-aggrandizement, my assumption was we could all be fall more cynically creative as to how a drug enforcement agency could get than arguing about the weight of paper.

For example, why not just call all the precursor chemicals drug as well, we could say they produced 50lbs of lsd because of the running water used in the process.

I'm just advocating for a level of cynicism that looks at a bigger picture to where once in awhile we could say something is dumber than it is insidious. Without doing so, I think it contributes to the persistence of laws that are in fact dumber than even their creators intended.

It's dumb because even if they wanted to have that severe of a punishment for LSD specifically, they could do math and just make the sentence greater for smaller amounts of actual drug. Be as cynical as you like, but we'd see equivalent exaggerations for every other drug if your line of thinking made sense.