When I read the headline I just assumed this must be an onion article. That is not good.

People who improve a property for free are not “suckers”, they are tenants improving their own home because it’s their home, and it brings them joy. We need to fundamentally stop treating real estate as though it is an investment, it shouldn’t be. People should not have to live everyday life as if their home isn’t theres, because that is an insane expectation, and really negatively affects mental health. People deserve to have a space that is just theirs, even if they don’t outright own it, it is a form of cruelty to disallow people from improving their own space, either explicitly, or implicitly through the financial system.

Regardless of how the system currently works, we need to stop accepting this bullshit from landlords. They bitch and moan all day about the “risk” they take on, and the work they do, but ultimately, this is that risk and that work. I’m sure this’ll garner lots of “that’s just how things work” comments, and frankly, I do not care. Landlords do not deserve my, or frankly anyone else’s sympathy. They are leveraging their capital to ransom out a vital resource for survival at the cost of everyone else in society.

Homelessness is worse than debt, just to be clear. You can survive with debt, there is no risk of death. Homelessness can, and often is deadly. This is just a fact.

We are at, and even past running out of space that is in commute proximity to an economic zone capable of supporting a non-impoverished lifestyle for the VAST majority of citizens. There’s tons of space in the middle of no where, but that space isn’t useful to anyone because no one can support themselves there. I don’t mean “find work” support yourself (though that too), I mean “have a grocery store within an hour drive one way from your house” support yourself.

As for working under capitalism, you’re right, it still sucks, but you can choose where you work, and there are choices to be had pretty much everywhere. The same is not true of housing, especially with the rise of suburban sprawl. You can choose to work remotely for any business you want, but you can’t choose to “exist” remotely. You have to take up space somewhere. Sure there’s space in the middle of nowhere, but how will you buy gas for your car with no gas station, food to feed yourself with no grocery store. Most of the country is like this. That is the whole problem, you simply can’t survive outside of an economic zone of a certain size, and all the housing in that area is being hoarded. I’m not arguing against the evils of capitalism, but to claim that not being allowed to exist anywhere isn’t a bigger problem then “I’m not being paid what I’m worth” is just a misunderstanding of the problem.

Agreed, in fact renting actively takes AWAY the solution to housing, because you can’t save AND the money you pay in just enables landlords to buy up more property, thus making it all more valuable.

Are there though? Beyond food, water, and shelter— stuff gets a lot more… easy to avoid. Food is something easy enough to shop elsewhere, and it’s possible for competitors to come in and undercut existing brands. Water is (for most of the US) relatively easy to acquire cheaply, or even free. But shelter is something that is pretty much impossible to compete with. Every area has a finite amount of space, and once it’s owned, it’s owned. Sure one landlord might lower their rent to attract new tenants, but it’s effectively guaranteed to never have more than a few competitors before you start moving a significant distance away. It’s one of the few things that’s impossible to avoid. You HAVE to exist somewhere, you can’t choose not to, and you can’t shop around endlessly like you can with other things.

Wealth inequality is definitely a huge problem, but the issue with landlords is that they are artificially restricting the supply of, and price gouging an already incredibly limited resource that scene needs to survive. At least with food, someone else can always make more and sell it for cheaper, or you can decide to eat something else. But with how housing is now, it’s not uncommon for just a few companies to snatch up nearly all available houses in an area, and there’s only so much “I’ll just move a little farther out” before you are an unsustainable distance from your workplace. That isn’t true of hardly any other market.

Nope, it’s either inspecting the TTL of packets coming from your phone (unless you have a VERY custom setup, the TTL from devices other than your phone will be very different), or it’s deep packet inspection. I tried to trick t-mobile last year into giving me home internet on a phone sim, so I did a whack ton of research.

He’s not scamming the religious, he’s bribing them. Elect Trump, and he’ll enact their zionist dreamscape. This is a transaction.

How is it scammy or gimmicky to put ads on a product you don’t pay for? I guess I’m just missing the disconnect here. This service costs Nvidia money to run.

You don’t need to exercise your stock options to access their value. It’s common practice to take loans out against their value, which allows you to access your money effectively tax free by instead paying interest against the loan. This is (again) a fairly commonplace practice used to make collecting tax difficult, and allow them to make the argument to regulators that they aren’t actually being paid that much, it’s totally just options they would never sell off. That’s why C suite has such a “burn everything to the ground, as long as our stock price goes up” mentality, because if it doesn’t, they have to start worrying about interest on their loans— because they have fairly low liquidity (percentage wise).

Base pay is a meaningless figure in tech. Total comp is all that matters. The true high rollers intentionally keep their base pay low to dodge taxes. This doesn’t mean they aren’t still getting and using this money, it’s just an intentional straw man to allow them to make this exact argument.

My comment has nothing to do with Taylor Swift. In fact, I’m a fan of hers. I’m entirely talking about the companies, BP and Shell.

No they have so much power because decades of lobbying have made it impossible to get anywhere without traveling on a road in a car— Which uses gas. This is not a problem citizens can feasibly solve, this sort if problem can only be fixed with government intervention.

That would be a dream come true for Youtube. Think about how that would affect them financially, they would be serving significantly less load, but they would still rake in all those Youtube premium subscriptions. It would effectively be campaigning to remove the users who aren’t monetized from the platform.

Depending on the profile, it’s not just a little latency that would be slightly annoying, it can be easily half a second or more, which is enough to be disorienting even in normal slow paced gameplay.

The promises they’ve made previous have been FAR less than their competitors. Previous pixel phones have only enjoyed 3 years of updates according to my research (Pixel 4, 4A, 5, and 5A), where as Apple devices (a clear competitor in their space) will still let you load the latest version of iOS (17) on the iPhone XR, a phone released in 2018, 5 years ago. The iPhone 8 is still receiving security updates, which was release in 2017, a full 6 years ago. I would be happy to see some competition in the space, but Googles promises fly in the face of their reputation here, and actions speak louder than words. I hope they do live up to their promises, but I simply won’t believe it until I see it for myself.

Do what Google does when trying to grant far reaching permissions to another account. Show a non-dismissible banner or nag notification constantly for 10 days, and then allow the user to dismiss permanently. It’s the best of both worlds. It makes it impossible for the user to miss, even if a shady repair shop tries to cheat them with aftermarket parts, but it gives the user a reasonable course to permanently dismiss any warnings.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Apple has a demonstrated track record of supporting their phones for years, Google has a demonstrated track record of killing anything that isn’t an immediate run-away success. So sorry Google, but I can’t just take your word for it.

In this case the “they” is referring to Unity. The value of Brand trust is one of the primary assets any company has, and this sort of behavior destroys that. Why would you invest tens millions of dollars in developing a game in an engine that could suddenly bankrupt a company in licensing fees, with little to no warning or transparency? It isn’t 2010 any more, and there are plenty of options for platforms.

The absolutely are, because it’s not a binary “try it and see if it works” change. This is a one-time, irreversible loss of brand trust from game developers who have a lot at stake, and a TON of options. There are no take backsies on stuff like this. Choosing a game engine for your game is a big decision, often researched and backed by some form of business team who are never gonna swing for a company with a track record of pulling out the financial rug from their customers. They will loose billions, if not outright kill their company by even suggesting this sort of thing with a straight face.