If you are in the US, and maybe other places, check your local library. Ours has a library of things. It includes tools, board games, musical instruments, electronics, cooking gear, toys and tons of other stuff. Otherwise, the local home depot rents things like chainsaws at a reasonable price.

More than that. You probably use them in public, where there are tons of cameras. So if you forget you phone in say a restaurant, odds are they have video of you unlocking it.
And let's not forget all the poorly secured wifi access points people commonly connect to...

Maybe this is how ww3 happens after all.

Wait until you hear about the deductible... where I am (not earthquake country by any means) the deductible was $80k. I sad pass on that.

Because both sides have extremists. And the liberal extremists live here. Just keep in mind society failed the extremists on both sides. It isn't entirely thier fault.

Which is not the same as a flood zone. A costal flood zone is super vague and covers an extremely large area. The bar for requiring insurance is rightfully not that low.

Well last century is the was the black panthers... and that lead to gun control by a republican governor. So... how about a mix and black and white people on patrol to see if we can scare them into wanting gun control.

What would actually happen if there was $100,000 of damage or more to like 100,000 houses in that area. FEMA only pays less than $50k. And according to the studies they always talk about, most people don't have $50k to fix their house. Would they just be homeless? The mold growth from all that water would make the houses unlivable.

Here is a bit of a different take. The entire economy is based on businesses taking risk. Every start up is a risk, and the majority fail. But that is what you have to do in business to get ahead. Now translate that to something like flood insurance. Would a sartup business pay for that if it wasn't required. No way. They would say if it happens the business just fails. So costs and pay are based on the same concept. Some people would end up destitute in retirement if they paid for all the insurance they should have.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Insurance shouldn't be a for profit business.

For private insurance, the key is "to stay in business with huge profits" for the gov version, it's politics of course, which you point out. They could easily fund it.

I would expect that it wouldn't be considered a flood zone if it took a hurricane to flood it.

I think that a lot of people ascribe a lot of depth to how the stoke market works that is really just a farce. When it comes down to it, the stock market is a corporate popularity contest. The concept of stock was a way for someone to get a peice of the action without having to actually know or do anything. And it acted as a way for the wealthy to annoint people as worthy. Nowadays , due to growth in the number of people involved, popularity is really all that matters. People will claim it is about revenue and such, but it really is about will other people buy the stock for more.

It's really like their own little game. We are just the peices. Neither party is working for us. They just work for themselves. But they have split up the issues to make sure the majority of the people have something to hate. And to play their game they need to do things to keep that hate going. So which one wins determines which hate will get applied. So your vote matters on that plane.

Truth in advertising laws. Make it illegal to lie, mislead, or deceive in advertising. And I mean criminal, like jail time for the CEO, or they can specify an executive that must sign off on all ads if they like. That person takes the fall. And who decides if an ad breaks the law. A jury, or something more streamlined but still made up of regular Americans who decide.

I got news for you. Business and the gov are taking advantage of all of us in far worse ways. They manipulate the economy to keep overall compensation down among other things.
And noone is making anyone spend thier own money in this situation. The fact is the powers that be are willing to pay for a specific level of quality in education. The teachers want to raise that level. So they are willing to use thier own money to do so. I work in software, and it is similar. The business is willing to pay for a certain level of quality. It is never as high as the user or the employees want. So we often spend our own time (money) to make it better quality. No business or government is going to pay for a quality level such that employees won't want to raise it more. That is just capitalism.
So the root of the problem is the disparity in desired quality for education.
We have been griping about teachers spending thier own money for longer than I have been alive. Almost nothing has been done. But imagine the gov just paid them all back. A few hundred a year per teacher on average. But what is really needed is many thousands per teacher per year.

The teachers unions around where I am are getting with the program. They told the district what they want, and they included that they want the state to pay for some of it. For too long unions have accepted agreements based on what the district can afford. But it really isn't the teachers problem that the state underfunded the district. And it is working. Teachers have some leverage right now. It needs to be used before it goes away.

Yes, your second paragraph is what I am talking about. Focus on the things that might be actionable. The reality is that teachers will probably always spend some of thier own money, just like other professionals. So raging against it is a distraction and it isn't an actionable problem really. Overall compensation, proper spending on support, not asking teachers to wear 27 hats... those are actionable. Those are what we need to be raging about, just like your last sentence.

I hear you, but being outraged by this has changed nothing in the last 20+ years. That is because it is just a distraction from the real issues that would lead to better pay.

I respect teachers, I help the pto, I donate time and money. And I vote for just about anything the school asks for. But I do get a little tired of the constant "outrage" the some teachers buy things for their job. Lot's of people do that. I buy things for my job, and generally they cost more. Focusing on this is really a distraction from the real problems. Asking teachers to do so many things beyond just teaching. Like social worker, phycologist, nurse, cell phone police, fight referee.... and all without the support they need from the administration, district, and state. Let's focus the outrage on that. That will give thier unions the clout they need to negotiate better compensation.

Or they don't feel like they have a better option. I have never met anyone who said, I like adds on my streaming service.