JasonDJ

Ehh...I'd rather a progressive tax system. I.e. tax rate increases with number of units.

Both of my landlords have been small private operators. First one owned a multi-family right behind his house and rented out the whole thing below market rate to friends and family.

Second one was closer to market rate but was the only property he had and landlording was supplementing fixed income.

I've got friends planning a long-distance move and renting when they arrive and for the foreseeable future. They own a home here (in a much higher COL area), and know eventually they will probably have to move back (aging relatives).

They recognize that if they sell now, they'll never be able to buy another house when that time comes, but also think market rate for rent is insane compared to what they pay for mortgage now or rent in their new location.

I don't think people in either situation should be excessively taxed. There will always be a need for people to rent a home. As such there will always be a need for someone to rent them. But it shouldn't be a high-profit enterprise.

People who gobble up property and treat landlording as an enterprise or even as a primary source of income, are garbage, and should be punished. People who are trying to keep their house 'in the family' but don't need it for an indefinite period shouldn't be published.

Bonus Panel: do the rising sea levels from anthropogenic climate change give us a bit of an advantage?

Badwater Basin? Lower.

Lake Assal? Lower.

Dead Sea? Lower.

The canyon under the Denman Glacier? Lower.

Challenger Deep? Lower.

TO THE DEPTHS OF HELL‽

Lower.

Not likely, and there's a...well, not really good...maybe understandable, or relatable... reason for it.

It has to do with the cost of commercial real estate, and the government being a barometer for private sector.

If the government says "everyone RTO", companies be like "cmon that means us too". Especially so for government contractors.

But if people stay remote...then there's no need for these big buildings in cities. So they sit vacant or underutilized. And then there's a surplus of commercial real estate, and the commercial real estate sector falls in on itself, and a bunch of other bad things happen.

But wait, there's more.

Why live in expensive, densely packed, overpriced cities, if not for being in close proximity to high paying jobs? Likely what would follow is urban residential and MDU/MFU values tanking as there's an exodus from cities and nearby towns. And while that might be good for people who don't own property, a lot of people, especially middle-class people in commuter-ville, will probably be losing their nest-egg. More than likely to be picked up cheap by somebody to build a warehouse or a datacenter or luxury condos or something. Something that takes up a lot of space but doesn't need a lot of staff.

Oh man I would love to live in a town called Effing. If only it wasn't in South Carolina.

You have the same worldview and understanding of human sexuality of an 8 year old.

Either your ridiculously naive or just straight up an idiot. Possibly both.

Jesus fucking Christ. I've never read anything so dumb on the internet. And I saw Trump get elected. Twice.

Yeah but the point is that if they hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

It's easier to ramp up an authoritarian regime if you start off bullying a group that's small and easy to marginalized. Then you work your way up from there.

What you're saying is like "All lives matter" compared to "Black lives matter". The point of BLM wasn't that Black lives are more important, per se, but that they need more attention right now.

Like if you've got two kids, and one scrapes his knee, and the other cracks his head open...obviously (hopefully) you love both of your kids, but one of them is clearly in more need of immediate attention. They matter more right now, in the current context.

I had an early PDA (think it was an IPAQ, not to be confused with ipad) that had a 56k modem that connected via CF slot.

It could be...but it's supposed to be the most newsworthy/discussed person. Doesn't necessarily have to be for negative reasons. Greta Thunberg was Times POTY in 2019. Last year was Taylor Swift and before that was Zelensky.

I dunno man if he's in Kansas that means he's past the Rockies and it's all downhill from there.

/s

Depends on a few things. Instance admin can rate limit requests. Pretty easy to identify a bot that's scraping traffic.

That's also one thing I try not to worry about. I don't generally say anything online I wouldn't feel comfortable saying on a soapbox in town square (generalized anxiety disorder aside). As a nerdy 90s kid, I learned anything you put on the public internet is public domain unless stated otherwise, and will probably exist forever (if only I could remember any of my GeoCities addresses).

Why do you think Microsoft left the Russian market?

Good comrades run Astra.