Solar is so much cheaper than Nuclear and the efficiency sway is so reasonable, it’s still the better option in non-ideal circumstances.

With initial cost of deployment being the biggest obstacle to nuclear, I’m not sure it will ever be the best green option for developing countries.

This is doubly true since it’s lifetime cost-per-kwh is much higher than that of solar.

One thing of note with the Steam Deck is that it CAN stream games from your PC, allowing you access to your whole library. You get access to fewer games in SteamOS (there’s still a ton). You can always look up what games are natively compatible with Steam Deck before you buy. The big ticket games are usually compatible nowadays (Starfield was markedly absent, but BG3 is there all-the-way).

Are you referring to Presh Talwalkar or someone else? How about his reference for historical use, Elizabeth Brown Davis? He also references a Slate article by Tara Haelle. I’ve heard Presh respond to people in the past over questions like this, and I’d love to hear his take on such a debunking. I have a lot of respect for him.

Your “debunk” link seems to debunk a clear rule-change in 1917. I wouldn’t disagree with that. I’ve never heard the variant where there was a clear change in 1917. Instead, it seems there was historical vagueness until the rules we now accept were slowly consolidated. Which actually makes sense.

The Distributive Law obviously applies, but I’m seeing references that would still assert that (6÷2) could at one time have been the portion multiplied with the (3).

And again, from logic I come from a place of avoiding ambiguity. When there is a controversiallly ambiguous form and an undeniablely unambiguous form, the undeniably unambiguous form is preferable.

Most tenants are functionally judgement-proof, unless you only rent to upper-middle class people

This is fair on large damage numbers, but you can often squeeze someone making $40-50k/yr if they owe you $5-$10k in malice-caused damages… but more importantly, for that kind of damage, you’re talking about small-claims court. You don’t need a lawyer, just time, and “they poured concrete into the toilet - here’s my bill” is the kind of open-and-shut case small-claims court thrives on.

As far as not being a slumlord, I have absolutely no tolerance for landlords that don’t want to keep properties in good repair, full stop

100% agree. But even super-renter-friendly states do little to hold landlords accountable. If you want to be a slumlord, you can be a successful slumlord. Tenant holds you to task with the state? You don’t renew the lease. There’s ways they can fuck with you if they know better, but often they don’t. From someone I’m involved in a lawsuit with (can’t give details), slumlording is a no-brainer as a numbers game. 100 slum apartments, get sued once a year, huge win.

Yeah, it’s expensive to replace a roof, but fuck you, that’s why you’re taking in rent.

Fuck yes. I’m not a huge fan of the whole “all landlords are evil” tankie rhetoric, but boy do I sympathize with them on the specific topic of slumlords.

I’m not questioning your motives directly. I’m suggesting that the changes you’re looking for are still going to cause more harm than good to most people.

Is your family privileged? Absolutely! Is it fair to the others that they are able to buy homes and even keep them if they fucked up financially while most other lose everything? Not in my opinion.

Have you ever read Harrison Bergeron by Vonnegut? I’m not a capitalist, but I still firmly believe you need to show your work when you want to take action that hurts the lower 99% to “even the playing field”.

As a privileged person, you might want to add some empathy to your answers in the future.

You just wrongly accused me of not having af air discussion among equals, and then you pull this? The only thing you know about me is that someone in my extended family has made enough money in their life to buy two rental properties. They don’t owe me anything. How does that make me privileged?

Further, you’re accusing me of lacking empathy. Why? I have the same problem with preventing them from buying a house as you would have if I said we needed to kick EVERYONE out of their homes because somebody out there is homeless. It’s the same thing to me. It’s obviously not the same thing to you. Do I get to say you lack empathy because of it? Because I don’t plan to. Instead, I like to engage as to why that’s a bad idea.

I will kindly direct you to my very first comment in this thread. Cheers.

Your first comment did not include a “why”. But you also don’t seem to want to engage. Just throwing out a horrific idea on purpose to troll? I think I’m going to presume you’re acting with self-awareness because I don’t want to insult your intelligence.

So you do you. I’m out. Not like what you’re suggesting will ever happen for people to lose sleep over it.

I understand the idea and its great if they were able to do that but the world would look a lot different if they would actually do it differently

I don’t think anyone has demonstrated that’s true. If everyone but megacorporations stopped owning property other than the one they live in, I don’t thin housing prices or rent would go down. In fact, it would have unexpected side-effects like increased rental rates (since you’d have to jump through even more hoops). Imagine if you will, the pre-flip car lease market. Owning cars was the way of the poor, leasing a new car every few years was the way of the rich. If only owner-occupied could be rentals, rent would skyrocket and the MANY people who want to rent would have to fight with each other. Consortiums would find a legal way to buy luxury rental buildings and have a dedicated “owner” live in them. As you implied, supply and demand. A lot of people don’t want the liability of property ownership for reasons other than “being too poor to buy a house”.

There would be more houses to buy and they would be cheaper, their money would need to be put in other things to collect interest

Yeah, it would collect more interest. So long as nothing happened to them (which it hasn’t), they’d end up a lot richer. But it’s a lot more risk because if something did happen to them, it would be harder for that money to be earmarked into a trust in the kids’ name like the houses are. So they would have had to live with the real risk that their son would end up homeless, but yay they’d have a lot more money.

The problem with a lot of people suggesting real-estate reform is that they don’t understand why individuals (not big businesses, that’s different) buy rental houses. It’s rarely about maximizing profit, it’s about minimizing or mitigating risk.

To be clear: your extended family is not the problem imo and would not suffer from a law like this.

Except, it sounds like you just said they would not be allowed to do what they did, and would be stuck with riskier propositions. Those houses were purchased under little LLCs so that if they got sued into bankruptcy their kids would still have a home (they themselves are under Homestead protections like most homeowners in my state). Not that they expected to be sued, but it’s called “doing anything to make sure my kids don’t end up on the street”. That’s what happens when you grow up in poverty. And there really is no better, simpler, and more reasonable way to make sure your kid won’t be homeless than to buy them a house. And if you’re not filthy rich, that doesn’t mean buying it cash and handing it to them on a silver platter. (technically, I think that silver-platter method would still be allowed under the plan I’m objecting to because the kids would have an owner-occupied house in their name… yay rich people I guess. My family isn’t rich enough for that)

It really is the Dems on this one.

I’m not sure you understand how Massachusetts politics works (or perhaps any local politics). I can’t speak for the other states with in-depth knowledge, but boy can I school you about Massachusetts.

Federally, we’re a deep-blue state, but that’s just not all of how it works at the state level. With a few exceptions we usually have a Republican governor. Yeah, the rest of the US like to call them “RINO” because the’re not on board with the craziest shit the alt-right has to offer. Most (if not all) of these changes happened under Romney and Baker, both Republican. Of note, none of these changes I’m talking about have ever shown up in a bill in legislature. They’ve all be driven by the executive action upon the mandate. That is, they fall on the governor. Who was Republican.

…and yet, I didn’t say it’s The Republicans, either. Democrats could’ve stepped in by passing laws preventing that behavior. We didn’t because our Democrats like to keep peace with our Republicans and, frankly, because the Democrats don’t care enough to involve themselves in the HOW as long as subsidies are happening.

But Dems aren’t following through with what they say they want to do–affordable housing for all

Again, I can only speak for MA. With one very recent exception (and excepting the recent excessive price spikes), MA does fairly well with providing affordable housing for all as long as it’s outside of Boston. But I think I wasn’t being entirely clear. I am mostly talking about Housing Project availability. Section 8 is, as you suggested, up to the landlord. It’s worded to allow people to live basically anywhere, even in the heart of Boston, with a limited income.

BTW - section 8 should be great for a landlord. You are guaranteed payment on the 1st of every month, and you can still initiate eviction if the tenant is trashing your property or doing crime

From family experience, the issue is that “trashing your property” can cost you years of profits or even force you to sell the building. I’ve had family deal with the notorious “cement in the toilet” meme for real. People really do it and it really costs a massive amount of money to handle. Home and landlord insurance does not cover intentional damage by tenants. We’re talking up to $15,000 damage just because they’re mad you’re evicting them.

Most landlords don’t care about “not wanting poor people” with Section 8. They care about having judgement-proof tenants who can cause damage and never be held accountable due to being poor. They also have to meet certain building code and quality standards that non-section-8 landlords don’t! There’s a LOT of non-section-8 rentals in New Bedford for this reason. No, they’re not trying to gentrify Durfee Street, I promise you that!

There’s two sides to the section 8 coin. Side 1 is that the rent is slightly above-average and some of it always shows up on time. Side 2 is that the rest of it is often late, overall risk is higher, and then you actually can’t be a slumlord. I mean, look at the list of rules. Everyone I know living in New Bedford apartments have (checks list) shitty or broken HVAC, decaying building foundation, crappy interior stairs, pest issues, flaking paint, etc. Not only can landlords get away with a lot of that (and worse) normally, but Section 8 includes annual and spot inspections for all of them.

I don’t fault the state making these demands, but it leads to a lot of people not registering their rental with Section 8, for reasons that have nothing to do with Poor tenants (and in many cases BECAUSE they’re going to have poor tenants who won’t pitch a fit about a not-to-code apartment). I’ve rented from places that would have failed Section 8. And I kept my mouth shut.

The problem is the lack of business-reason to spend money on things that do not raise the property value. Unfortunately “fixing things” usually carries a negative value return.

The common things flippers do (and I know this from some friends who did real-estate for flippers) is buy houses that mostly need the most efficient changes - new tile, paint, etc, with minimal inexpensive fixes to make the house saleable. And honestly, that’s obvious when you say it. The extension of that is that if you can cover up an issue or the issue is not outside margins of being saleable (old septic, safe-but-near-EOL electrical, less ideal insulation, intentionally avoiding discovering asbestos where it probably exists, etc), you should.

Then, depending on local laws, flippers have more limited disclosure requirements than builders. Which means anything that isn’t “gross negligence” that cannot show up on a home inspection… you. just. don’t. do.

Here’s an interesting article on the risk.

But if you think that it’s reasonable for someone to own a house where they work, where they originally were from, and where they want to vacation, then quite frankly I don’t think we are ever going to see eye to eye.

I think there’s an “OR” there, not an “AND”. Or are you refusing to see eye to eye with someone who buys a house somewhere because their career moved, then chooses to keep the old one because they were able to rent it? If that’s the case, why?

Also, if it could conclusively be shown that keeping people from having a second home wouldn’t affect homelessness (which I suspect is true), would you still want to prevent ownership of a second home? If so, why? Just want to stick it to the middle class?

I’m sorry, but considering the top 1% has more than twice wealth of the entire bottom 99% combined, it seems counterintuitive to pass radical reforms that have a larger effect on the lower 99% than the top 1%.

I mean, if I were filthy rich and that kind of thing passed, I would just deed out a single plot of land with a 100-mile or more strip between two 100-acre squares (probably work with other 1%ers to have a co-op of that thin strip of land) and I’d get away with having as many houses as I wanted.

But someone like you or me finds a good price on a little 800sqft second house close to work saving time, money, and environment on commuting? Banned?

I have extended family that fall into “lower-upper class” but also know their income has an end date (comes from a lucrative career). They saved up and every time one of their kids turned 18, they bought a house to use as a rental property with a “just in case, my child will never end up homeless” gameplan. Not a huge cash expenditure for them and not a huge profit center, it bought them peace of mind a WHOLE lot cheaper overall than adding an apartment to their house for him to move back into as an adult.

I always found that reasonable, and it did in fact keep them from ending up with a basically homeless 30-something.

I’m okay with house flippers because they’ll buy undervalued run down houses nobody wants and turn them into desirable homes.

House flippers are arguably responsible for a housing-quality crisis. Flippers often fewer lower code requirements than new builders. You end up with a lot of houses with nothing but cosmetic remediation and fairly substantial issues otherwise.

Dems say they want affordable housing, right up until someone wants to put it in their neighborhood, then they start acting like Republicans

In my experience, this isn’t the case unless someone (sometimes Republicans, sometimes just politicians) try to put ALL the affordable housing into specific neighborhoods for selfish reasons, or the place the affordable housing is going doesn’t have jobs because someone actively avoid putting them in the places with jobs because “them poor people are criminals and will hurt business”.

New Bedford, MA was a great example. It was an open secret that MA acted to ship a high percentage of projects and Section 8 to New Bedford. It’s also an open secret that budgeted commuter rail plans to New Bedford kept getting cut despite the rail running to the rural ass-crack of Western Mass, creating a job-starved desert of one of the otherwise most established economies in the state. Solely because somebody didn’t want people in affordable housing to have mass-transit access to most of the state.

I don’t blame “The Dems” for that. Neither should anyone. This isn’t NIMBY, this is “Let’s put them all in your back yard. Then put more in your back yard. Then keep it coming. Then burn the bridge. Aren’t I doing good?”

What I don’t get is how most places, people get mad at us for not being able to read an article due to the paywall. I mean, I’m not going to subscribe to 50 shitty news sites just so I can read someone’s damn random shit.

What’s Ubuntu’s “particular madness”? They used to be a little FOSS-only, but they’ve chilled out on that.

I agree on the other points, though, with one caveat on both.

No matter how many games run on linux, it won’t be enough because there aren’t ever going to be linux exclusives. Without linux exclusives, there will always be more games that run in Windows than Linux, even if the majority of them run in linux AND run better than in Windows.

Office sounds like a big deal, but Apple managed to prove you don’t need it. The real problem Linux has with office is that it has no well-marketed office suite. There’s nothing wrong with Libre- or Open- except the complete lack of advertising and passive training to its nuances that we get from MS and Apple office products.

It’s not that linux can’t win on games or office. It’s that the game is rigged against it on both. It took me a few years back in the early 00’s, but I quickly realized that there will never be a “year of the linux desktop” regardless of how good Linux gets at games, office, user-friendliness, or anything.

And that’s ok because MY life is easier when I use linux.

I don’t know if we know it’s shrinking back for sure. With the exception of Q1’23, there seems to be a balance around 19M sales per quarter. There’s a way to read it as shrinking, but there’s also a way to read it as stabilizing. There’s just not enough samples to be certain.

What we have to remember is that we’re finally reaching a turning point in GPU pricing. Laptops that were in the $2000+ range a year or two ago are closer to the $1000 commodity price. There had been a “value stall” that just broke, where a new computer used to not be a significant upgrade on an old one, and so people might hold onto their current computers a year or two longer.

I mean, I sure I pulled a few discounts out of my ass, but I just landed an i9 laptop with a 4090 for just over $2k as a replacement to a computer that died. Two years ago almost to the day I bought a middle-of-the-road gaming machine with a 3070 in it for about the same price.

I wonder at the various nuances of that. My wife and I have 4 phones and 3 tablets between us between home and work. It would seem any multi-person household would be likely to have more mobile devices than PCs due to the variety of the former. So that chart seems to be that there are more mobile devices per person, but perhaps no reduction in PCs.

In fact, PC sales rocketed up in Q3’20 for very obvious reasons, and have largely not come back down to pre-COVID levels.

Welcome to the United States. Federally speaking at least, there are very few protections for hiring/firing. You can be fired for your hair color, unless the hiring manager is as much of an idiot as he is an asshole and says “black people don’t have blonde hair” (happened in a Hooters case I remember reading). The company policy reads “right hair color for your skin tone”, and is actually normally enforceable in the US because it’s implying no “unnaturally dyed hair”. They hypothetically can turn away an Asian redhead with no legal ramifications so long as she dyed her hair that way.

So yeah, they can 100% not hire you because you’re a Scorpio. More realistically, you’d probably see someone who doesn’t hire Aries, Virgo, or Aquarius because the New York Post had an article claiming those three signs are more likely to get fired.

I interviewed a guy whose dev career involved a (pretty good) front-end for a grow operation. I believe the ownership at that company may have opted against hiring because of that. I’ll admit, I wasn’t wowed by his skills enough to go to bat for him.