Let’s see you do it

That’s true but they wouldn’t be able to see their comment still available if that were the case.

In any case I was just commenting on the shadow banning part. Seems that OP didn’t understand what shadow banning was so I was explaining.

That’s what shadow banning is. Hence “shadow”. Other banning you get notified about. Shadow banning essentially black holes you so that nobody except mods and admins can see your content.

The top comment I replied to stated that this was a black and white issue. Either you are a landlord and that’s unethical or you’re not and it’s ethical. You seem to have taken this conversation in a completely different direction. It is solely about whether you can be a landlord ethically.

I also did not assume the majority want to do anything.

I know people (including myself who actually owns a house) who would love to (or already do) travel the world. Buying and selling houses in every location you travel would be a hindrance not a help.

There is no black and white, this is an ethics discussion, there are shades of gray for everything. Just because you want to stay in one location and never move doesn’t mean others want what you want.

Edit: adjusted sentence to make it easier to understand

you say this as if most people would be like that. whereas most people don’t want to travel all the time

I do not, I say it because it has to be involved in any discussion of ethics. It isn’t a binary problem. There are shades of gray to everything, which people hate talking about.

I know many people that like renting because they want to move every few months or years. Their job affords it (which any reasonable nation also allows), they work remote, or they’re mobile, etc.

Acting like everything is black and white when it literally never is is making it impossible to have actually discussions that enact change.

Wouldn’t you like to travel the world and see the sights? Would you want to have to buy a house and sell your old one every single time you changed countries? I think not.

That’s not my assumption. I know people that only want to rent, they don’t want to own. In that worldview someone owns it.

In regards to paying for shelter, unless you get rid of money, things have to be maintained, that costs money, and someone has to be paid to fix it, even if it’s the government paying a contractor.

The government doesn’t like owning things that require enormous amounts of maintenance. It’s a liability, because they can’t then focus efforts on actually serving their citizens. So if the government is already going to pay someone to maintain buildings, it’s better to not own the buildings and instead regulate in a manner than serves everyone.

That means there will still be landlords. There are still people that want to rent, the government doesn’t like owning buildings, so there will still be people owning and renting their places out.

In what way? The majority of affordable housing (as defined by the government) is housing to rent. Someone has to own it and it’s incredibly likely to not be the people living in it because they can’t afford it or do not want to be buying a house.

See the top comment

Imagine the internet is a network of roads. The ISPs in some parts of town control the roads, in other parts they only control the stop lights. You can build your own road through private land to avoid the stop lights but it’s expensive. The isps can put traffic cops at the stop lights and monitor and stop you if they want. The only way to get around it is to build a road all the way to the destination.

But it’s not. Someone edited wikipedia to put a definition only cited in one business article from 2010. It was never the common definition until news companies started calling anything they didn’t understand “social media” because it became a catch all. Forums aren’t social media.

I don’t give one shit what Wikipedia says. I’ve argued this on here before. Wikipedia’s definition includes every website on the planet because of how wide ranging and useless of a definition it is. Defining social media in that way makes the meaning useless and only serves politicians who want to block things they dislike on the internet. Essentially “social media” == internet to them.

No: you don’t follow “real identities”, it’s a forum, not a user generated feed of personal life details, the votes are not likes/dislikes of personal content, but upvotes and downvotes to indicate whether that post belongs in that forum or not. For the most part users are not generating any media at all, though they can (exactly like a forum). The basis of the site isn’t around following anyone or the content they’re generating, but instead subscribing to communities.

It’s only social media if your definition of social media is “people commenting on stuff” which would mean that almost every website on the planet is social media. Clearly one of these definitions is wrong and I don’t really understand how we got to the place where “commenting on stuff” made it social media when it’s clearly not.

I thought the bottom left one was Del taco. Which I’ve only eaten at once lol.

Yeah. Fruit! Lots of fruits have vitamin c.

Kagi doesn’t know but I think kagi’s indexing is just better so you don’t get the blogspam as much and when you do you can block it across your searches.

There’s a lot of good answers here but there’s some missing things as well.

To start with, there was a separate category of flying dinosaur, those with ‘fingers’. They could climb trees, grasp things, etc. They were large and heavy. The heaviness was due to the increased weight that these joints added, including in their legs. When disaster struck, the lighter dinosaurs (descendants of today’s Aves) were able to escape the disaster due to reduced energy usage, snapper energy requirements, etc. The heavier ones were not.

Second, there are a lot of categories that birds fall into. Like others have said, birds in isolation eventually revert to flightlessness. It’s advantageous.

I’m not sure why you think mammals/birds are the dividing line either. There are many animals that “fly” that aren’t birds (bugs, bats), and there are many mammals that aren’t on land as well (whales, bats, etc).

I feel like your question is maybe more a question of “why are mammals so dominant” which probably comes down to many differences in avian biology, adaptations that explicitly make life easier in the sky vs land. Better usage of oxygen, ability to lay eggs out of reach of predators, explicit bone structure for flying. Flightless birds have lost many of these things. Mammals have other adaptations that make life easier for them on land. Trying to cross this boundary usually results in disaster for the evolutionary line and so it doesn’t happen.

you didn’t read what they wrote…

basically, her dog had gotten sick. Nothing major, but it required a bit more care than a healthy dog would

isn’t “quality of life was suddenly diminished beyond a certain point”. It’s how every being on earth works. People literally think that there’s no obligation to their animal to do anything other than give them food and water. As soon as the animal gets sick, or requires even a slight change outside of the norm they go to put it down. That’s not an act of compassion in any sense of the word. It’s laziness or malice on the part of the owner.

Colorado is very friendly to tenants, not landlords.

Yes, and you came to the conclusion yourself at the end. Why do you need to stop using discord? Yes lots of people have complaints about it (valid) complaints, but you can prevent discord from tracking your location and why would you be discussing private stuff in there in the first place.

It’s going to be an incredibly difficult life to go full privacy. You can beat 99% of people with just Adblock and pi.hole. Every step further really just gets you slightly more invisible. Getting an iPhone and using their mode for protecting against state hackers is as far as I’d ever go and even that’s just not necessary.