SterlingVapor

It all comes down to "well, sure we might have plenty, but if not for capitalism how could we decide how to divide it?"

But any solution has to promote self-interest as a virtue and can't take things away from people who currently own them, and also must conform to a bunch of myths we have about "how the world works"

Mushrooms have chitin, so I'm guessing there's not common trigger

I've found revanced to stop playing the video after a minute or two unless you frequently update it (which is a manual process)... I no longer listen to lectures while I run errands, because there's now no convenient way to do it. Ads are out of the question, and finding a video I want to watch only to have it cut out as I get on the road has killed the experience for me

I'm on Android, and open to suggestions

That's not the problem... The problem is Linux isn't "normal". Their work laptop comes with Windows or osx. Their home computer comes with the same.

Now go tell the average person to install Linux... To them, you might as well be telling them to open up their computer and snip a jumper to make their computer faster. To them, you're telling them to take their working computer and do something they don't really understand and is beyond their ability to undo.

It's an aftermarket modification to them. If you want to make Linux approachable, it's really damn simple. Hand them a computer running Linux, with a pretty desktop manager, and a GUI for everything you expect them to do with it. Better yet, add an app store so they can try out software and run updates without feeling intimidated

My point is, if manufacturers start selling Linux machines again, a lot of people will get on board

People aren't opposed to learning, they're just scared of breaking it, and they need to at least be able to use a web browser without going up a learning curve

I think I've got it! So on install, we make a checkbox that says:

• do not install web search in the start menu, but also I consent to Microsoft collecting creepy levels of data about me

Generative AI is definitely this. You can tell by how personally offended people got instantly. How they freaked out about what this could change, and how despite their strong feelings towards it, they don't learn to use it.

Also, it's a paradigm shift - it basically lets you grab a random high schooler and ask them to do any task at 1000x speed. Maybe it'll be great, maybe it'll be done all wrong and full of made up facts. It's a random high schooler, you're not sure what they know and you can't trust what they give you, and if you try to blame mistakes in your work on them no one is going to accept that as an excuse - but if you hand them appreciate tasks and properly check their work, you can accomplish tasks drastically faster

I'm not sure I agree that you have to give a chance to respond - I think context matters.

I think if you make an accusation or cover a specific incident, they should be able to give their context, not out of fairness but as this might give a more accurate view of the truth

In this case, they presented a specific series of events showing a pattern of behavior, and a timeline of communication they made with billet (including their public comments in the subject

What truth could they add here? They could add more details or make excuses, but that waters down the message - the point isn't "Linus did something bad and made factual mistakes", it's "Linus has shown a pattern of doing bad things, and frequently publishes factually incorrect figures"

I think you're coming at it from a place of "you have to give them a chance to respond out of fairness", but journalism isn't about fairness, it's about distilling an easily consumed message from the endless complicated facts that make up any situation. Journalistic integrity is about making every effort to give a "good take", and should put accuracy above all

Being fair to the people you're covering should follow naturally by pursuing the truth, doing the opposite is what we call "softball journalism"

That's a courtesy you can extend, but mostly it's a protection against libel - if they take you to court about a claim they dispute, being able to say "your honor, we gave them a chance to respond before going public"

In this case, there's no dispute over facts - they didn't bring up any accusations, they just took what LTT posted publicly and presented criticisms of it

For example, if you report on the president being accused of misconduct you might ask the white house for comment, but if you are criticizing a speech they made or their public actions you probably wouldn't (unless you think they'll give you something that improves the story)

What's the conflict? They have to make you believe they care about you, they don't actually have any built in interest in your well being

Some have a strong sense of ethics, but those ethics are the only thing from them being a complete shill

Some estimates put the number of vacant homes upwards of 30% a few months back, and it's been climbing

It's not about a lack of supply, it's about homes being both an investment and a basic need - someone like Black Rock can go into a small town in Georgia, snap up every property that goes on the market, then dictate rental prices while jacking up the house prices by bidding on everything. Even if they greatly overpay, by doing it a few times it drives up the valuation of the entire area, overall making their net profit grow

And it's not just Black Rock, it's a bunch of investment companies doing this everywhere. They have the same goal and their interests are aligned - they're not competing for tenants, they just want to jack up the values and use homes like stock investments

Some estimates put the number of vacant homes upwards of 30% a few months back, and it's been climbing

It's not about a lack of supply, it's about homes being both an investment and a basic need - someone like Black Rock can go into a small town in Georgia, snap up every property that goes on the market, then dictate rental prices while jacking up the house prices by bidding on everything. Even if they greatly overpay, by doing it a few times it drives up the valuation of the entire area, overall making their net profit grow

And it's not just Black Rock, it's a bunch of investment companies doing this everywhere. They have the same goal and their interests are aligned - they're not competing for tenants, they just want to jack up the values and use homes like stock investments

Excluding them doesn't do much, you have to engage them or you'll just end up on the other side of a wall from them. It just supports their narrative of us vs them, and makes it easy to gaslight them into ever more extreme beliefs

And since their side tends to be more profitable, that's a problem come voting season