Most people have always been OK with working reasonable jobs for good pay, though. Work is not the problem. Unchecked greed is.

He spoke carelessly, but he didn’t exactly say what the author said he said. You can in fact do many things with it. Copyright doesn’t care what you do if you aren’t copying. That’s the definition of the word.

That was … not convincing. I’m here to learn things. Why are you?

To be clear, all of the big media groups and all of the big AI companies are in favor of expanding copyright law to give themselves more power. If one of them wins or loses on an issue like this, it doesn’t improve our life in any way.

Everyone has their own opinion, but I think the problem with AI is not that people are developing fancy Turing test machines, but rather that the whole industry is full of cynical speculation where people are getting rich knowing that they can’t deliver what they’ve promised, at great expense to everyone else in society.

I was having trouble understanding what you meant because you didn’t think about the obvious implications of millions of properties being unloaded in a short time.

If the number of landlords drastically increases, which would happen when you have mass property sales, then there’s more competition, and rent goes down.

Or, depending on your setup, the government seizes some of the properties that people refuse to sell, and turns them into public housing. This also drives rent down.

So then, what happens? Oh yeah, both buyers and renters win. Was that clear enough? Perhaps I should write in all caps.

I feel that you missed one basic aspect of economics. Competition is one reason prices might go up. There are other reasons, which are relevant here. Monopolies, collusion, price fixing, goods that people can’t live without, speculation, those are also reasons that prices go up.

In the housing market, it’s not fair, it’s not free, this isn’t a basic supply and demand situation.

I think we agree, with the caveat that you need to be careful when stating a position like yours, because it’s often used as an excuse to do nothing at all.

I don’t think your definition of middle class is what most people use when they talk about it.

This is really obvious if you think about people remarking on the death of the middle class. They’re not saying that the mean or the median doesn’t exist. They are saying that families like the Simpsons are much less common than they used to be.

What a joke of a headline. That’s not what making ends meet means. They are wealthy, by definition they can afford to make ends meet.

Comedy in general. Others have given specific examples of things that are discriminatory, including racism and sexism.

On the one hand, it’s sad to realize that your old favorite movie is no longer that, but when you realize why I think it’s actually uplifting. You can feel that you’ve learned something, you’ve improved as a human being, that you care more about society.

And because there are many genres other than comedy, it’s not like you lost all of your favorite movies.

Yes. My interpretation is that the above person knew that, but they didn’t think it was even a remotely funny joke, not that they didn’t understand what the implication was.

Historically that’s not true. We have had disastrous governments and Supreme Courts in the past, and yet the country somehow survived. It’s just that they do so much damage while they’re around.

And just because things held together in the past is no guarantee that they will hold together in the future.

Rather than saying that the system has failed us, I think it’s more accurate to say that the system has been failing the vast majority of Americans for many years.

Since long ago, my friend. Citizens United was a landmark in my opinion, although there are probably older rulings that showed how little they care about basic functionality in a democracy.

My interpretation of the article is that it’s a question of timing. If you offer me money in order to hook you up, that’s a bribe. But if I hook you up and later you give me money in thanks, that’s not a bribe.

Obviously both of them are corrupt. But apparently this law can only target the former.

Flatpak is one extra step. If apt or rpm already has what you want, which is true for many new users, why would we push them towards scary click thru action?

Wait a second. You think that if large-scale landlords have to sell property, that will magically make it harder for other people to buy it? Now now. You can do better.

I’m down with anything. The point is that your rent is not high because Bob has two houses. It’s because the real estate speculators own five thousand.

The sarcasm might have been lost on the author. One can never be too sure these days. :-)

What a terrible article. The solution is throwing more subsidies? Of course it’s not! The solution is making it illegal to own more than a few properties. It really is that easy.

Isn’t this why we’d expect new users to use a built-in package manager? Because it avoids this exact problem?