/u/NovelspaceOnly Can you verify this?

As to /u/Main_Mathematician77 , you are effectively a software developer with the ability to dabble with machine learning. Are you located in the states or elsewhere? It would be very confusing as to how you are broke yet have that skillset.

> Don’t @ me saying this is a waste of compute, I know what I’m doing and idgaf.

That is extremely unnecessarily antagonistic/combative

I think the issue here is what is defined as corruption.

I instead would favor, on a federal level, an agency created solely to find inefficiencies in our government on a micro scale (not macro).

Make their department be funded by a minimum of a few hundred million a year, give them a huge swath of authority to levy fines on an individual person basis rather than agency/department basis, and let them keep 10% of all fines given, one third of which gets contributed to their employers pension funds, one third to the agency itself, and one third given to all tax payers via a seperate line item on their tax return, so the agency is very visible to everyone.

And when they find actual corruption, give them a mini DOJ so they can throw actual criminal charges at individuals themselves, rather than wait for the DOJ.

And lastly, the agency would only receive oversight from a very constrained group of people, be it the president himself, or the Supreme Court justices, or similar, meaning don't let congress touch it.

Dude was probably also going "fucking hell, if I don't help this guy it will mean the train will be delayed by like an hour and I just want to get home".

That doesn't answer OP's question.

For example, housing laws in NYC have many limits on security deposits and how leases are allowed to work, and yet that doesn't mean anything unless you are able to get a lawyer and go to housing court, or get very lucky and have a public/nonprofit agency back you.

You didn't specify the actual enforcement mechanism. For example, I really doubt that department going to find listings in their own and take the companies to court/fine them by themselves. They probably expect to have a lawyer work with them to prosecute these companies, and the lawyer coming from a class action or form a group of private citizens paying the lawyer.

I don't disagree, it could even save their life. Though I don't see what relevance that has to what I said?

It's important to be realistic too.

It's equivalent to feeding all the homeless in NYC for a day and saying how it's "amazing progress" in ensuring no one ever starves in the world. Yeah sure, it's a great change, but in the quantitative sense it did bugger all for the world's homeless.

A glimmer of hope is nice, but it's also critical to be realistic and not let that glimmer turn into thinking it's a guarantee all will be alright.