Printable View
I’m in Singapore right now and everything is on your phone. The level of security to do anything but a way more than in the US. If they build it right it is totally not hackable. I have several passes on my phone tied to my phone number. If someone else with a different number tried to sign into the app with my credentials, the operation would get an alert and the person would not be able to sign in as they would not receive the OTP. Even if I provided them I’m with the OTP, the Ap checks the phones credentials once sign in. There is no such thing as privacy’s here.Quote:
Originally Posted by This End Up
Not claiming VR would actually build their system to work like that, but it is possible.
I feel like I am in future world, and while it’s nearly impossible to steal my credit card info and use it fraudulently, everyone knows what I’m doing where all the time.
Good, however most of these systems are designed to stop a hacker who has stolen your information. For skiing I image a different senario. Such as two bros who just want to get a lower price for skiing. One bro works 9-5 and is a weekend warrior, the other bro is a ski bum and skis 9 to noon during the week. The 9-5 bro gets a confirmation request on his phone every weekday around 9am, and he pushes the "Accept" button.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ottime
Maybe you should, ya know, read the article.
Unreal shit going on right here. And also thinking VR fans run that fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Did Vail buy shares in OpenPath?
^its not about the sheep
NIMBYism at its finestQuote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
For those who didn’t catch it YoY epic pass and epic local pass sales were down 10%. Overall prebook products were up 9% (4 packs or whatever they call them). Vail spent ~$20m relocating lifts to Whistler after Park City blocked their permitting for upgrade at PCMR. Vail operating at about 30% Margin
You couldn't have read the issue more incorrectly. But nice gut reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
No, it’s rich people protecting their property value by preventing additional “poor people” housing. It’s NIMBYISM. Folks can’t find a place to live and we care about big horn sheep? Give me a break. No one would have batted an eye if was being developed into multi million dollar single family homes, just like they haven’t said anything as areas around Vail got that treatment. If the big horn sheep are going to survive it’s not going to come down to some dormitories directly overlooking I-70.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Much of conservationism these days is just as much about property value for the ultra rich.
Fact.
Rather than just snarkily deriding someone else's take, why don't you regale us with your reading of the issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
Town of Vail sucks just as bad as Vail Resorts. Stop thinking that there is a good guy and a bad guy in this fight, and the shit will always run downhill.
At first I assumed rich NIMBY stuff too, but looking at the land for the proposed development, it is really land that should never be developed regardless if it is employee housing or Elon Musk's new crib. It borders the Eagles Nest Wilderness area. There is a hiking trail up Pitkin Creek into that wilderness that would pass by this development. It is an extremely steep slope. And that slope leads directly up to pristine, remote mountains.
The city of Vail offered Vail $12 million for the land. Vail rejected that offered so the city sued for eminent domain where the court will now set the purchase price. It could be much more than $12 million (or less). If Vail and their taxpayers want to shell out to protect this land, good for them. The city will be paying Vail fair market price for the land so what's really problem?
Attachment 430870
Attachment 430871
Attachment 430872
https://unofficialnetworks.com/2022/...iles-petition/
Stick those Mexican employees down valley where they belong, eh, MTM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierD
Nothing you said is wrong.
There is some nuance here, such as VR having some better parcels to build on, particularly in ways that wouldn't stress local transit, but VR doesn't want to. Does that make it OK for the Town to go back on its previous approval of this housing project and to try and steal VR's land to force VR to do it the the new way the Town just decided they wanted? Fuck no in my book.
Literally the only time in my life I've taken VR's side.
The city is paying for it. Sounds like you disagree, in principal, with the concept of eminent domain. Governments can use eminent domain to acquire land for any public purpose. Keeping land next to wilderness undeveloped is a public purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Wildland preservation is important, especially when it's 5 acres next to an interstate.
These are the things worth fighting for.
The only reason the sheep like that spot so much is because the mag chloride makes the grass extra tasty.
A wee bit racist, and I should know, but not necessarily a bad idea. Vail could buy acres and acres around the town a Gypsum to build employee housing and then invest in a private bussing system for employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Eminent domain was not in my opinion intended for government to go, "oh this is a nice idea lets do some takings... we like that plan today vs last week when we thought something else was a nice idea."Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Critical community good accomplishable no other way, like an interstate? Sure.
Eminent domain doesn't have to be for "critical" things like roads. The statutes vary by state, but in general, governments are allowed to use eminent domain for things like parks, and open lands, that are not necessarily "critical."Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
It will be interesting to see if Vail counter-sues the city arguing that the city's eminent domain is not for an appropriate "public use."
I gave you my opinion on how it ought to work. I did not give my interpretation of the law as that is not my specialty.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
I think you are confused. The land WITHIN wilderness should be undeveloped. I love wilderness and forests and nature as much as the next person, but every time more land is deemed special and given wilderness or open space or conservancy designations, the price of land nearby goes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
But I would be all for eminent domain if it means bulldozing a few mansions and dividing up the land for a few dozen locals to put prefab or tiny homes.