▲ 574 ▼ San Francisco says tiny sleeping 'pods,' which cost $700 a month and became a big hit with tech workers, are not up to code (www.businessinsider.com) submitted 3 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world 164 comments fedilink hide all child comments San Francisco says tiny sleeping 'pods,' which cost $700 a month and became a big hit with tech workers, are not up to code::The pods, which are 4-foot-high boxes constructed from wood and steel, made headlines after tech workers praised the spaces.
[+] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 3 years ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zak@lemmy.world 19 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) I agree there's a problem with corporations and wealthy people treating fines as a mere cost of doing business, but in situations where there was neither malicious intent nor actual harm, it's problematic to create a legal minefield with harsh penalties. The goal of regulation should be to gain compliance rather than punish trivial noncompliance. Of course one might argue that something that does no harm ought not be forbidden at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 years ago For a case as benign as this that makes a lot of sense but the attitude of entitlement to projects that generate capital is wild, and not doing something as simple as getting the building permits before you start building is really emblematic of that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zak@lemmy.world 19 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child) I agree there's a problem with corporations and wealthy people treating fines as a mere cost of doing business, but in situations where there was neither malicious intent nor actual harm, it's problematic to create a legal minefield with harsh penalties. The goal of regulation should be to gain compliance rather than punish trivial noncompliance. Of course one might argue that something that does no harm ought not be forbidden at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 years ago For a case as benign as this that makes a lot of sense but the attitude of entitlement to projects that generate capital is wild, and not doing something as simple as getting the building permits before you start building is really emblematic of that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 years ago For a case as benign as this that makes a lot of sense but the attitude of entitlement to projects that generate capital is wild, and not doing something as simple as getting the building permits before you start building is really emblematic of that. permalink fedilink source parent