Couple the increasing property taxes on vacant homes with an agreement that there are no property taxes on properties leased for free to qualified individuals (people who would qualify for government housing anyway essentially) and the government will pay for repairs. The government gets a cheaper place to house the homeless, having only to pay for repairs, the landlord gets an appreciating asset with no repairs to worry about, and the homeless get a place to live. Seems like a win all around unless I'm missing something.
psivchaz
joined 2 years ago
Oh damn. My eyes just glazed over that part because the idea of someone who clearly doesn't know what they're doing taking apart a charger for a car is so insane.
I don't think that's what this is saying. It seems to be saying it just wasn't plugged in all the way.
Lifetime pass for Plex too. A few months ago, it bubbled up an ad-filled version of a show I was watching in front of the show on my server. That is, it showed up in Continue Watching. I was briefly baffled when I started watching an ad on a show that I thought was streaming locally.
Anyway, I switched to Jellyfin. There's some imperfections, but so far it hasn't tried to trick me into watching ads.
Yeah but have you seen the state of things? One man's absurdist joke is apparently another man's deeply held belief right now.
It sounds like Hollywood tech lingo. Like when you're watching a movie or a TV show and the designated techy character starts just saying computer words that make no actual sense in the real world, but I guess in CSI: Idiottown the hard drives have severe overheating issues.
The best selling car in America last I checked was the Ford F-150, which costs slightly more than a Tesla Model 3. By your math, people who can afford a car payment are rich?
What I'm trying to get you to understand is that the people you started this thread wishing harm to are mostly not millionaires, they're people who are one layoff or one medical bill away from the abyss, just like most people in America. Your hate for Musk makes perfect sense, and he HAS been obviously an asshole for a long time, and the hero worship he got early on IS and always was stupid as hell. But people catching strays in this fight just because they bought a car doesn't make any sense.
If you're going to run everyone through a purity test based on who gets their money, it only makes sense that you should hate on every truck owner too for buying more gas than they need, hate on every Facebook user for making Zuckerberg rich, hate on every person who shops at Walmart for helping destroy retail. Basically, if your test of a good person is "have they ever spent money that went to a billionaire who's destroying the world" then you haven't got an ally in the world.
Nah, quite the opposite. My point is that we have to live in the society we're in. You want to label one billionaire asshole as worse than the others just so you can feel smugly superior to people who are, for the most part, more leftist than the average and in the same working class bucket you presumably are. It doesn't help anyone.
Shit on Musk, shit on Tesla. They deserve it. Don't shit on the people who should be your allies. It's counter productive.
So you've never done business with a company who's CEO is an asshole? Never bought gas, used Windows, googled something, gotten on Facebook?
I knew full well this guy was an asshole. So is pretty much every CEO in America. You can't opt out, you can only choose which asshole you want to do business with. The holier-than-thou bullshit because Musk is the asshole of the day helps no one. If you buy oil at all, you're funding an industry that has lobbied governments around the world to buy more oil for literal generations, all while knowing the harm it was causing and the people it was killing and would kill.
It's cool that you've picked the Nazi you hate over the ones that had the good sense to stay home, but it's childish at best to think that makes you a better person.
I don't understand why you think it's either/or? I didn't say, "Starbucks is solely to blame" or anything of the sort. It's incredibly stupid that living requires an employer, and that's something we need to fix, but as long as it does they should act and be treated like they have the ethical responsibility they've been given.
Maybe you should stop giving people free passes for psychopathy just because it's within the law.
To the company it is "an adjustment." To those people, it can be a devastating loss of healthcare, of the money they use to pay for food and shelter, and even an identity crisis. Starbucks has all sorts of positions, ranging from seasonal part time employees, to store management that gets paid pretty well, to corporate employees that presumed they were in 20y career trajectories. Every single one of them deserves better than losing their job just to pay for a big bonus for one guy.
It's not about whether they are allowed or not. It's that actions should have consequences but the modern corporate structure has so divorced leadership from the consequence of their actions that this is normal. Let me rephrase: Hurting people to pump your personal wealth is not just normal, it's expected. That's sick.
I'm a bit concerned about that TBH. I'm not a doctor or medical researcher though so if they make one I'll probably be an early adopter anyway. But since cancer cells are body cells with a problem, it feels like a screw up on a cancer vaccine would just lead to some exciting new autoimmune disease.