It’s a landmark change in NYC.

Again: this is NYC’s official website. It might (as a stretch) be a “lie by omission” on a national newspaper’s website, but this is a website that is solely dedicated to NYC itself.

▲

henryfjordan 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Now I'm being super pedantic, but every town can't have the same "landmark" law. What makes a law a "landmark" is that other municipalities look to it for direction.

In a world where the California law exists, and the New York Times has been used as an example of the success of that law for years already, claiming some sort of moral victory with the "landmark" qualifier is objectively wrong.

Does any of this matter? No, but I like arguing about it.

	▲	woodruffw 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you want to be pedantic, NYC is a different “land” to have a “landmark” for :-) (I like arguing too. Nothing wrong with that. I think in this case it suffices that they’re regulations in different states with relatively different political histories, even if the political valence of the two is somewhat similar. I would agree if this was a “landmark” change for Irvine, CA.)