I’m going to write another comment, because I’m skeptical that you will actually read my original reply.

I think you should self reflect a bit. Your position here was to call me a ‘selfish, horrible person’ because I have found value in being able to rent a house. All the While you are a landlord yourself, deflecting your responsibility and putting me down, someone, who, for all you knew, was a renter them self (the very class whose necks you step on with your property owning foot).

Now, I’m only using language like that because you you have thrown the stone. But I encourage you to reflect.

Firstly you don’t know who I am, or my situation.

I know from actual experience (as I have been all three, renter, homeowner, and property manager/landlord) I still prefer renting in many cases. there is a lot of value in renting, including, the ability to be transient, and the lack of attention or care that one needs to keep

I think you are assuming that a landlord just calling a guy is the same as you just calling a guy, and sometimes it is, but when I rent, the value is that I don’t need to care, at all, I just send a text message to the same guy I always send a message to and they come in fix it while I’m at work, and it’s done. I don’t need to make insurance claims, I don’t need to sus out 15 different contractors to get the best price, I don’t need to do the actual work myself, etc

Come back after you’ve owned that duplex for a decade (you evil selfish horrible property owner, as you describe them) and you need to replace the roof and the HVAC system and you will see that it isn’t always the same scenario. Yea fun little house projects are great, and you get to hang pictures on the wall or whatever, but that isn’t valuable to everyone.

Do you really think homelessness issues would be solved by getting rid of the ability to rent property? Have you ever actually worked with homeless people before? In many cases, homeless people don’t want or need to own a house, they want the ability to be transient, to move to where work is, to incrementally improve. A physical house is a burden, it requires maintenance and attention that someone getting on their feet doesn’t necessarily have the time or energy for. Short term living is essential for equitability. Forcing everyone into ownership schemes means forcing people into rigid structures that don’t allow growth. I’ve moved from state to state to state, if I had to buy and sell houses Everytime I moved somewhere I would have lost more money than renting, thanks to economic crashes, closing costs, interest, etc.

I think the problem you have, seems to be extortion in a housing market, driven by large commercial interests, which is pretty different conceptually from the idea of short term leasing of a managed property as a whole. Missing the point and focusing on level of effort instead of looking at the abstract value proposition. I don’t care how much effort something is for someone else if I’m paying them to do the thing, it’s because I find value in it. The same way that doing an oil change is super easy for a mechanic, but I don’t want to do it so I pay someone else. Or making. Sandwich, or whatever.

Unfair prices are not intrinsic to the concept. And I would wager your rage should likely be directed towards unchecked capitalism.

I don’t see an effective system that has private ownership of property and no short term living schemes. I can only see that working with full state intervention, supplying housing for people as they need, which is such a fundamental shift in economic strategy that it isn’t worth discussing. Unless your argument is for communism, in which case, sure, but any landlord discussion is basically useless as the core structure of ownership changes and responsibility changes.

But I dunno, you also seem to be a hypocritical property owner yourself, so i don’t really get your position overall.

In fact I’d say you are the worst kind of property owner. You are using someone else to cover your mortgage, someone you know personally, and so instead of just co-owning the property, you rent to them? Why do you get the equity gains? Why are they paying your mortgage interest, helping your credit, etc.

You have the same energy as ‘the only moral abortion, is my abortion’. Do you think you get a pass on subletting property because you feel you have a morally superior position? Do you think you are not still extracting value? If they are not owners of the property, then they are paying you for the privilege of living in your property, regardless of promises you may make to them or even if you pay them back, you were able to extract time value of money out of them. You are the person you are accusing me of being. But if you think they are getting value from the scenario, than I really have to question your stance as a whole, how do you reconcile this?

Why don’t you sell the other half of the property to the people you think should rightfully own it or refi and add them to the mortgage? If you have an excuse, then maybe you should self reflect on your stance, since there are obviously scenarios, where there is some value in being a landlord.

Look, I get the sentiment.

But conceptually, landlords do present a service.

There is time value in being able to call a singular person and say ‘my stove is broken’ and not have to do anything else.

Yes you can do it yourself if you have the time and skill, it is a hassle finding the right stove, at the right price, getting it delivered or picking it up, finding, hiring, and going under contract with individual people to do installation, managing warranties, etc.

A lot of people don’t want to do that, a lot of people are also comfortable paying a premium to have someone do stuff that they don’t want to do.

There is value in being a broker, and that is a landlords primary job, the maintenance and responsibilities are abstracted away to the renter.

This is a post about people who don’t understand encryption.

I don’t agree with it, but the reason this religious argument (and most challenges of religion) falls flat, is because, to the true believer, their God is infallible, and so the idea of God making a mistake like that is on direct conflict with their core beliefs.

Debt is a concept not a physical thing, there isn’t anything intrinsic about it that must make it transfer to others.

If I’m ok with forgiving $5 they my friend owes me for lunch, that doesn’t make the debt mysteriously transfer to a 3rd party.

I actually don’t think this is the case, since it’s just emulating actual behavior. In this case, real humans are talking like that, so if the AI adopts that in its training data, it’s not nonsensical.

It’s not really different from new slang getting passed in as training data and the AI using it.

But they do have a pr department. The holy see is a political organization. They are an internationally recognized government with diplomatic relationships. While not a member state of the UN they are permanent observers and influence decision making on a worldwide scale, and it’s not a secret that the church, which is run by the same person as the holy see (the Pope) has had its fair share of controversy.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to think the holy see spends time and effort in order to make their appearance, and the appearance of the church, look better.

I think you think I’m someone else.

But that is neglecting the performance aspect.

Something like this can be very good for offloading large amounts of data onto a parity backed array either to be moved to a proper long term storage solution later or to be actively worked.

High resolution / bitrate footage comes to mind, where you may be offloading multiple cameras at once and need high write performance.

It’s pretty unlikely that SSDs will have price parity with spinning rust anytime soon, but the value in them has always been performance.

Probably because one is founded on evidence and the other one is founded on a made up concept by the institution in question.

I mean, the Catholic Church is a political organization that has global reach, I don’t think it’s a wild conspiracy that they carefully consider their appearance.

Also, airplanes have spoilers!

Are people really not aware that you don’t have to have notifications for everything?

You can turn all the notifications off on your phone and watch.

The value the watch brings can be found in other places, for example, being able to stay connected and have music and emergency contact without needing to lug your phone with you during a run or if you lose your phone.

A smart watch means you can leave your phone at home more often in general while still being available to those who genuinely need to be in contact with you, which is great for reducing doom scrolling and the like.

Funny, but really, those things are marginally more effort than learning the rules and are a far cry from the level of effort it takes to actually be considered broadly ‘good’ at chess.

Learning one opening system can be done in about an hour and most of the tactics advice is just things to think about as you play.

Lichess -> chess.com

But it’s hard to be impartial / objective about modern stuff like that.

If you want to beat all of your friends at chess:

learn how to mate in endgames with a few different combinations of pieces.

Castle early and on the same side of your opponent.

Learn to defend scholars mate.

Focus on piece development early on, get you back rank pieces out (bishops knights)

Fight for the center

When attacking a square, just count how many other pieces are attacking and defending that square and see if you have more than your opponent, this is a great way to quickly analyze an attacks value.

Trade when you have a piece advantage, this is like taking a math question and simplyifing the terms. It greatly simplifies the game and brings it in to the the end game with an advantage.

Learn any one opening system just a few branches that can consistently bring you into tactics (static analysis of the board state) even or with a slight advantage.

These tips can be accomplished in a week and will dominate anyone who ‘just knows the rules’

Hopefully the TVs don’t won’t require that connection to operate.

Millennials are Gen Y

Or they are used because of the ability to be bypassed, e.g. japanese porn censorship