• subignition@fedia.io
      1·
      8 months ago

      The only reading that is making sense to me is shorthand for “pays for”, but I’ve never seen that slang in the wild so I have no idea

    • fireweed@lemmy.world
      1·
      8 months ago

      I assume it’s shorthand for “pays for”

      My understanding is most shorthand/euphemisms nowadays seem to originate from tiktok’s strict and sometimes inscrutable censorship rules. Maybe this is one of them?

      Edit: apparently this was a case of text-to-speech gone away. I prefer my head cannon of tiktok trying to censor conversations about anyone who “pays for” an elicit service.

  • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    8 months ago

    So fucked up that the town wouldn’t pay for a human position and instead has a PlayStation 4 handing out the meter fines.

  • SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz
    1·
    8 months ago

    It’s actually illegal to add money to other people’s parking meters (where I live, at least).

    Disgusting that there’s laws against it.

      • mihnt@lemy.lol
        1·
        8 months ago

        Then there’d be gift tax and the government wants their cut.

        /s

    • exocrinous@startrek.websiteEnglish
      01·
      8 months ago

      No, it’s good. It prevents people from supporting car polluters. Any law that harms car drivers is a good law.

      • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        8 months ago

        A parking ticket isn’t going to make me stop driving a car. It might stop me from paying rent though.

        You know what would stop me from driving a car? The ability to stop driving a car.

        Holy shit it must be so nice up on your high horse, where you’re not forced to climb into a metal box powered by explosions to hurdle at lethal speeds through a flock of other death machines to avoid starving to death.

          • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            8 months ago

            So how’s homeless treating you? Must be going pretty well, since apparently by trying to avoid it I’m in the “any law that hurts you is good” category.

            • exocrinous@startrek.websiteEnglish
              01·
              8 months ago

              Car-hostile laws won’t make you homeless, but they will make it so being too disabled to drive is less of a contributing factor to homelessness.

              • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
                2·
                8 months ago

                No it fucking won’t. And it absolutely would make me homeless. I can barely afford to live as is. And it wouldn’t help disabled people avoid homelessness. It would just increase homeless.

                Now, walkable cities, public transport, shit like that. Those would make disability less of a factor in homelessness, and it would get people like me to stop driving.

                The problem is that shit isn’t profitable for the owning class. You’re not going to fix an owning class problem by punishing the working class.

                • exocrinous@startrek.websiteEnglish
                  01·
                  8 months ago

                  One who takes the lives of the poor and the nonhuman as though they were property is of the owning class. Eating meat and driving a car is bourgeois. Only one who rejects their privilege to take the lives of others through property relations is a worker.

  • PunnyName@lemmy.world
    0·
    8 months ago

    Ok the one hand, FTP.
    On the other hand, fuck cars.

    But, paid parking is the better route here, since free parking is a plague on actually getting walkable cities.

  • reversebananimals@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    8 months ago

    Ticketing people who don’t pay for parking is “bullying?”

    This is pretty insulting to people who have actually suffered from real bullying. There’s plenty of real problems in the world to be righteously angry about. Maybe let’s not post shitty Facebook memes on Lemmy.

    • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
      21·
      8 months ago

      It’s meter cops who camp on your car in case your meter runs out before you make it back, so they can give you a full ticket for one second of “stolen parking”, you physicality thief, you.

  • fireweed@lemmy.world
    01·
    8 months ago

    Eh, I’m not sure how I feel about this one. Parking is a huge thorn in the side of transportation reform, and ensuring parking turnover is actually pretty crucial to a functional transportation system. On-street parking is public right-of-way that could be a bike lane, enhanced bus stop, street seating for restaurants/cafes, parklets, drainage swales, large medians for trees, wider sidewalks, the list goes on. However we don’t get these nice things because “wE NeEd ThE pArKiNg SuPpLy.” Except often you’ll find that there would be sufficient supply to remove the parking on even just one side of the street if turnover were higher, and turnover is not higher because people are abusing the parking. Things like store employees parking all day in spots meant for customers, people using on-street parking to avoid more expensive lots at the destinations they’re actually visiting (like entertainment venues), etc. Have you ever encountered a parking meter that would only let you put in 2 hours of money even though you need the spot for much longer, and you had to run out mid-way through whatever you were doing to feed the meter? That means you were probably not the intended user for that space and you should have found longer-term parking elsewhere. Maybe that store manager that runs outside every other hour to feed the meter rather than use an all-day parking lot (but that’s a three-block walk away and this parking is right here!!1) or taking public transportation (because that’s beneath them) would rethink this behavior after an expensive ticket. Point is, I’m not sure helping people skirt parking regulations is fighting the system or standing up for the little guy.