It may well be an inconvenience to you if someone chooses to recline their seat but nobody owes you an explanation. Expecting them to justify themselves to you isn’t a reasonable stance. And given that you don’t know what someone is going through, whether they have a hidden disability, whether they’re in chronic pain, I really wouldn’t advise asking, let alone shouting at them.

How would you know whether or not the person in front of you has a compelling physical need? Are they supposed to explain their health concerns to you in the hope that you deem it sufficiently acceptable for them to do what they can to be comfortable? It’s unreasonable to expect someone in physical pain to suffer the indignity of explaining themselves to someone they don’t know.

I can live with the person behind me thinking I’m an asshole.

The airline offers the facility and I won’t sacrifice my own needs for fear of upsetting a stranger.

So create a tax for leaving property empty and use that to fund programs to address homelessness.

There are plenty of solutions which aren’t permitting theft.

Banning short term rentals for instance would be pretty effective. There could be other side effects but it’d certainly lead to many second homes being sold.

> We aren't paying low, the problem is the crazy rent market.

I sympathise with this. My assumption would be that imposing punitive taxes on unoccupied properties is the most realistic solution.

If that forces people to sell, supply goes up. If people continue as they were, there’s more money available to do something with.

Quoted from the article:

> Public opinion on squatting is polarised, with some viewing it as a necessary response to systemic failures that leave citizens without affordable housing options. Others see it as an infringement on property rights and a challenge to the rule of law.

If you're actually fine with theft, again going back to the mugging example, we simply couldn't be further apart in our views. I would be curious to know if you're a homeowner but honestly, I don't think either of us are going to gain anything from delving any deeper with this discussion.

Freeloaders, admittedly a charged word, is how I'd view someone who helps themselves to something I've worked to pay for. How is that any different to a mugger stealing your phone or your wallet? After all, they're likely in a worse financial position than you. If you can afford to replace it, let them have at it.

> And anyone who has an extra house is 'well-off'.

I don't want to fall into a strawman here but my interpretation is that you're fine with criminals stealing from someone, as long as they're in a better financial position than you are. It's convenient to imagine that the only people falling victim to this are those who can afford to have their property stolen from them.

I’m not from the US.

I spent 2 years living in Spain.

Are you claiming that the average Spanish citizen believes that a typical person should be responsible for freeloaders rather than the government?

- Holidays lets - Standard lets where there's a changeover - Properties for sale - Your own home when you're on holiday

Your comment is completely disconnected from the reality of the situation facing ordinary middle-class people.

Maybe you could argue that squatters need support but subsidising them is the role of the state, not a job for individual citizens.

I could offer some anecdotal evidence but that seems pointless. Especially when the stats speak for themselves. It's not just media hype.

They, along with other people in a similar position to them, have all suddenly become experts in smart home tech.

They have video doorbells, motion sensors, door sensors, etc. All so that they can be alerted to any activity immediately, allowing them to act within the exceptionally short eviction window.

The reality on the ground is that these ridiculous policies are widely exploited.

It was claimed that the R1 would navigate an app like a person would. That it wouldn't matter if the UI changed because the AI would figure it out the same way a person would. It follows a script and breaks when the UI changes.

It was claimed that it would be faster than ChatGPT. The majority of it is a ChatGPT wrapper.

A product exists, sure, but I'd be surprised if anyone feels it met expectations.

You could argue that they shouldn't be housing this data with Snowflake but then you could say the same about a service like Amazon S3.

At what point is a company able to rely on a third-party vs being expected to run it in-house?

There's a very different business culture in the UK when it comes to legal threats and I suspect the fact the loser pays both sides plays a big part in that. As a business owner, I'm happy to avoid more commonplace legal nonsense, even if it means there's potential for huge companies to abuse it.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bitcoin-high-court-lon...

The norm, as far as I'm aware, is that the losing side is on the hook for the winner's legal fees. Seems like a pretty good deterrent against bringing frivolous claims.