Ferus42

Like what? Genuinely asking as a Windows user with a few Linux machines.

My fantasy would be for people like you to vote so that someone like Trump doesn't win the presidency. Unfortunately, your informed voter principles stuck us with an actual tyrant.

I did not realize when you said:

OR war criminals who promise that "nothing will fundamentally change"

That you were referring to Joe Biden. Aside from you laughably calling him a war criminal, I apologize for not recognizing a such a noteworthy quote from 2019. But since we're here, let's have the full quote, shall we?

"I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money. The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.”

So two elections ago, Biden assured a room full of rich people during a campaign event that they could continue being rich if he were elected. Then, during the 2024 election where he dropped out, you decided not to vote for his replacement, apparently based in part on this quote. Amazing.

So you, being the big brain political science major that you are, read the polls and decided to abstain from voting in the presidential race because you thought it was inevitable that Trump would win?

Sounds pretty far from intelligent to me. Whatever your motivation was, you chose not to vote against the nearly 80 year old narcissistic fascist with dementia, who is easily manipulated by anyone willing to kiss his giant shitty ass.

Your excuses may soothe your concious. To the rest of us, you are one of the many people responsible for the ongoing madness in the US.

Winning by less than 1% is not decisive.

Did you somehow miss that the meme is about the people who chose to vote for a third party, or not at all?

I've been out of the GPO game for a while, but I've never heard of widespread issues with laptops waking up even if their lids are closed. Did this start with Windows 11?

MacOS just working certainly has a lot more to do with supporting an exponentially smaller array of hardware than either Windows or Linux does.

If you're truly concerned about Microsoft re-enabling that task, it's puzzling that you would suggest an Apple product as an alternative.

They are as anti-choice as it gets.

ACPI enabled BIOSes and UEFI support wake timers.

Windows uses this feature to wake the PC all spooky like so you don't get to click the update button yourself.

While Windows doesn't have an Arch wiki, the instructions for turning the automatic wake feature off are a web search away. You'll need another web search to disable automatic updates though.

You dont need to use group policy.

Admin console: powercfg.exe /hibernate off

Now its off. Hybrid sleep is just a faster Hibernate.

Doing what, working on Azure? Also why not just run Linux locally?

Not even that. Go into Task Scheduler and disable the "Update Orchestrator" task. Problem solved.

Congratulations, being so knowledgeable about real estate. Enjoy the dopamine hit. I have never been able to afford a condo, and not working in that industry, I had forgotten that condo associations exist. I know what an HOA is, my home falls under one.

I don't understand nationalization? You don't appear capable of conveying your arguments without falling back on lists of things, like buses, airlines, banks, ferries, and so on. You're also really focused on how intelligent you think you are, and how unintelligent you think I am. Enjoy those happy thoughts. With as intellectual as you are, somehow you missed the point of my previous argument: The reason for the nationalization is what matters. I certainly didn't "ignore the rest", as I even pointed out a specific instance of a nationalization being good for the businesses and the public. However, simply nationalizing a business because it makes too much money is a terrible idea. If you want to argue otherwise, then point out a specific instance in history where such a nationalization occurred and where businesses did not start leaving the country as a result, and then provide the Wikipedia link to back up your argument so I can go read the background on it myself. Don't just lazily give me a link to a Wikipedia article and expect me to find your counterargument for you.

Forbes is corporate propaganda. Cool story. If their article is factually wrong about the housing market, provide a counterargument about the housing market with a reference.

I can't read?

The government could increase the availability of housing vouchers in the meantime while transitioning to guaranteeing some form of housing for its citizens.

That is awfully nonspecific and fanciful language. If you have something specific which is supposed to follow housing vouchers, I'm curious to know what it is. Bonus points if this plan results in something better than government housing projects of the past.

Disingenuous. You keep using this word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

dis·in·gen·u·ous, adjective - not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

That one's free. If I am not being candid, or sincere, or pretending to know less about something, please explain how. You keep insulting my intelligence though, so an explanation of how I am pretending to be even more stupid than I allegedly already am will be an entertaining read.

Its not a matter of having to search for housing types. By referencing apartments, condos, duplexes, you're referencing multi dwelling units with extra steps. I see no point in making the distinction between them. In each case, either one or none of the families in those types of residences own the actual building. Even with a condo, where you do not make a monthly payment on the dwelling itself, you still owe rent, maintenance, HOA fees, whatever you want to call it... to the evil building owner.

On that page, as you say, most of the businesses nationalized in western countries are railways and utilities. You'll find that at least most of these businesses were nationalized because the business itself was failing. Amtrak is a key example of this. US passenger rail lines were going out of business, and the government offered to BUY all the passenger services in the country so the rail lines could focus on more profitable cargo. The end result was Amtrak. What I don't see on that list, are any western countries that nationalized a business because it was making too much money.

When I think of my internal biases against countries like Venezuela, China, and Russia... No, I don't think I will.

Forbes is not a good source? I would ask you to justify that, but I don't really care. I don't care about Forbes either. They are allegedly as center-biased as Reuters, AP, and the BBC though. Perhaps you might want to reconsider your internal biases? Feel free to offer up your own article explaining why the nationwide housing market is in the state it's in.

Your argument was about housing affordability and price gouging, and then referenced that 15 million vacant homes statistic to make your point. My counterpoint is that many of those vacant homes are affordable, people just don't want to live in them for a variety of reasons. Perhaps you should find a statistic that talks about vacant homes in places where people want to live. Or, perhaps you could find a statistic that actually makes your point such as how many homes are available for purchase vs for rent where people actually want to live.

Housing vouchers... So you want to take government money and give that to the landlords rather than do something about the cost or availability of housing?

If you want to end the conversation, you're welcome to not respond.