brackled

Thanks for the clarification. I originally tried to access the piefed post but it wouldn't load so I worked off the assumption this was a natural lake.

I'll edit my original post with a note to clarify my misunderstanding.

He was weak of faith... Should have stood his ground with true faith, only then would it have parted but the devil prayed on his lack of conviction and made him run /s

Note the text below was based on the assumption this was a natural lake. Please see the reply comments below providing further clarification. The homeowner cleaning up his shorelines is a drop in the bucket compared to the fact that an entire swamp was replaced with an artificial lake. Leaving my original comment intact for posterity inspire of it being incorrect in this context.

I think the problem is that this is NOT the natural state of this specific shoreline. If being left alone resulted in trees and grass growing then a sandy "beach" shoreline is not in balance with the local ecosystem. Trimming the grass and clearing a small path for access would have been okay but nuking that span of shoreline has now introduced significant erosion risk. Grasses, shurbs, and roots play an important role in preventing erosion. Maybe the 50-100m stretch won't be a big deal in the long run but if all the homes in the area follow suit then long term large scale problems will arise. Even still at a small scale, I can already see how close this shoreline is to their home. They have eliminated a decent bit of erosion preventing vegetation that served as a buffer from the back yard of their homes. A few seasons of high and low tide cycles will, at best wash away their "pretty walking area", and at worst undermine the stability of the soil near the building foundation. There is no easy "undo" for the damage they have done, the closest thing is artificial erosion preventative measures which will be concrete, metal, or some other manufactured system that will be much more of an eye soar then the original condition they apparently hated so much.

I really don't have much sympathy for anyone that is continuing to use "AI" agents in their production environment. "AI" at every level has continued to show it is still predictive text on steroids.

I should have clarified, guilt and location matter. If it's in public space then all bodycam footage should be free game. That's no different than if someone recorded it from the side of the street. If it's in private space then it should be based on guilt. But again, I don't like where that can go as well because the inverse is cops come into your home shoot you and that footage is locked away because it was recorded on private property and you are no longer around to consent release of that footage.

It's up to the public how they respond. The point here is not setting a precedent for police withholding bodycam footage regardless of who request. We can't open any doors for police to try and withhold footage more than they already do. This time it just an embarrased celebrity but next time it might be copes wrongfully arresting, killing, etc. I do tngicr a shit about JT but I do care that body cam footage stays public information.

Friendly rebuttal. I don't like this version either because of two reasons. First is that it is still using stolen material to do any of this "creative work". Second: the knob twiddling, mixing colors, and all versions of that are integral to the creation process. Happy accidents are why we have a lot of what we have in the creative world. Somone chasing a specific sound might discover their own sound while twiddling away for hours. They will be able to do that in a much more replicable and modifyable way than the black box that is "AI". But that's just my opinion as an amature creative.