ObjectivityIncarnate

This seems alright, no?

The executive order directs the HHS and the Treasury and Labor departments to ensure hospitals and insurers disclose “actual prices of items and services, not estimates” and take action to ensure “pricing information is standardized and easily comparable across hospitals and health plans” including prescription drug prices.

She’d already clinched her loss before she started chumming up to Cheneys, I think.

The vast majority of the increase, is what I said. In other words, I’m saying it wouldn’t be nearly at the 3% mark without those users, and with over a quarter of all Linux users coming from the Steam Deck userbase, that is, in fact, true.

Just boot the computer, choose which DE you want to install

Yeah, that’s not at all accessible to the average consumer; they don’t know what a “DE” even is, much less why they should choose any over any other.

Very, very few people want to deal with something other than a ‘just works’ situation.

I think it will continue to rise. People are updating their rigs all the time. Whenever they update their rig they’ll have to ask themselves whether they want to continue with Windows on their new rig, or try with something new.

The vast majority of this increase is from people playing on Steam Decks, which run on Linux, not from people switching to Linux on their PCs.

If it continues to rise, this is the reason. The general public is less and less into using a desktop at all as time goes on, much less running, and much less changing to, an extremely niche operating system on one.

EDIT: The previous sentence is actually more of the reason, upon further reflection. The total number of people playing on desktops period is falling, and the vast majority of desktops are Windows, so non-Windows OSes will comparatively gain ‘market share’ as that happens, even if their numbers don’t change at all.

If you’re a White Republican/MAGA/Christian Male, I’m just going to assume you’re a pedophile now.

So if everyone who’s over 7 feet tall is male, by your logic, everyone who’s male is over 7 feet tall.

Hopefully that makes it obvious just how flawed this reasoning is.

The probabilities are just too high.

Mainstream media is the last place you want to learn probability from. It’s the reason that over decades of violent crime rates decreasing, the public is led to believe that it’s been increasing that entire time.

Have you considered that the media you are (or allow yourself to be) exposed to, plays a part in that?

As an example, this took literal seconds to find, and it’s an article from this month:

A North Carolina state House member has been charged with sex-related crimes involving a teenager earlier this year, court records show.

Six-term Democratic state Rep. Cecil Brockman, 41, of High Point, was arrested Wednesday on two counts each of statutory sexual offense with a child and taking indecent liberties with a child, according to a magistrate’s order detailing his arrest.

I bet you’ve never heard of this person, or ever saw this article, right?

Before I explicitly looked, I hadn’t either. But it’s not that it was hidden, really, just that it’s not the data the algorithms put in front of my eyes, without me having to go seek it. Don’t underestimate the impact these algorithms have on what you’re made aware of, and how that controlled exposure can shape, or warp, your sense of reality.

I’ll never forget that graph that showed the comparison of how much violent crime had decreased over the years in the US, juxtaposed with public perception of violent crime rates literally rising in inverse proportion over the same period of time, thanks to mainstream media sensationalism. Ever since that day, I’ve tried to keep myself from making assumptions about how common something is, based on how often it’s reported on, especially when it comes to controversial/shocking subjects like these, as those are the ones where there is the most temptation for an outlet to sensationalize.

Is this kind of absurd hyperbole really productive?

Come on, not all singers molest children.

I feel like the fact that he was a church minister is much more relevant information for the headline. Who gives a shit that he sang a song at a Trump rally once, seriously? Clickbait slop.

a guy that brought his Charlie Kirk flag
‘what the fuck even is a Charlie Kirk flag?’

Well…can you tell us? You’re the one who saw it, lol.

Yes, and my rent covers literally all of them.

So, nothing’s keeping you from buying a house then, since what you already pay in rent covers all of the cost. Right?

I should not be forced to pay a premium for a feature I will never use.

Why haven’t you bought a house already, then? Could it be that it doesn’t just cost what you pay in rent each month?

No, I will not define basic fucking terms for you.

Then don’t be surprised when people read the terms and use the definition 99% of people use in 99% of situations, and not the fringe academic definition you’re thinking of, and misunderstand what you’re trying to say.

Grow up.

If you are too ignorant to understand the difference between personal and private property when it comes to systemic analysis of our systems of ownership, the. You’re too fucking ignorant to have an argument with.

You’re so mad you couldn’t even keep track of where you’re ending and starting sentences, lol.

Imagine being this furious over something that’s entirely your fault.

Also, fuck you, I’m autistic and I’ll communicate how I fucking please, shitheel.

So am I, so what? Stop making excuses—how you communicate is your responsibility, no one else’s. You have zero justification for throwing a tantrum like this, over the fact that the vast majority of people consider “private property” and “personal property” to have identical meaning, and not the obscure academia-specific definition you’re using.

P.S. I hope you realize one day that you will never change anyone’s mind on anything, speaking to people this way.

The concept of someone having enough money to rent but not enough to own is ghoulish in the first place.

Don’t think you’re being a little dramatic? There are many more costs involved in owning a house than the mortgage payment.

If my landlord can pay $<1,200 for this house’s mortgage and upkeep, and I can pay $1,200 a month for the right to sleep in it, then we should simply cut out the middle man and have me pay that $<1,200 a month for mortgage and upkeep directly.

You’re paying for not having the responsibility to pay for any maintenance/repairs upfront, and for having the ability to easily pack up and move on short notice. If the roof suddenly needs replacing, that’s $9500 on average that you have to pay right now.

Chances are, if you’re financially stable enough that you’d be able to handle things like that without it being a financial catastrophe for you, then you do have enough money to own.

Holy bad faith Batman.

Pointing out that what you’re saying doesn’t make sense isn’t bad faith.

For the love of God, go read fucking theory

How about ‘for the love of God, define your fucking terms’, if you’re using them in a way inconsistent with colloquial understanding?

No one in everyday life considers “personal property” and “private property” to not be the exact same thing. Stop playing semantic games and communicate normally, if you expect to ever sway anyone. It also helps not to insult people not privy to said semantic games.

If you live in the house, it becomes your personal property. Meaning you own it while you live and reside there. No one can just come into your personal space. Yet, when you no longer wish to live there and are moving away, the house transfers ownership back to the community until someone needs it.

So:

1. How, exactly, is it being determined who gets to live there first/next?
2. If none of the residents are actually purchasing the house, who’s footing the bill for them all? I’m seeing estimates that the total residential housing in the US carries a value in the area of $45 trillion, with a T. You think you’re getting anywhere near that with tax revenue? And that’s without even considering new construction and repairs to existing construction.

Housing, and other necessities, should be community property…Fuck the exploitative system of private property ownership.

So you’d want it to be the case that anyone can enter and live in the house you’re living in, and you have no say in the matter because you don’t own it?

Do you really see no massive problems with such a system?

It’s not that complicated. Without landlords, there is no renting. Without renting, owning is the only way to have a place to live.

So if there’s no renting, and you’re unable to own, you have no place to live.

Donny 2 Inches

Donny 2 Dolls

What are you even talking about at this point? lol

It’s impossible to prevent anything of significant value that can be owned from becoming a “financial vehicle” to some extent. This is idealism with no practical application.

place limits on how many properties they can own as well, plus also close loopholes like using LLC / some kind of other shady company to buy more houses.

This is a cat and mouse game that the law, glacially paced as it is, can never win. The tax strategy suggested would be much more effective.