That’s the same in Texas

This one is so annoying.

Startup founder that has no seed (venture capital) money yet, e.g. they haven’t gone through a funding round yet. They’re funding the startup with their own money to start off.

use the library. I don’t mean go to the library, I mean use it for free things. for example I can go to like 20 different museums for free through my library. disc golf is free at almost every disc golf course on the planet. parks are free, walks are free. bouldering is free. There’s a ton. it’s all about your imagination.

Other museums charge for admission, but the tickets are decently cheap.

You can use your library card to get cheaper or even free tickets to a lot of museums as well.

Covered in the comments: it’s duplicated gpl etc licenses

those are all power adapters. they’re just different ports to adapt. so bottom right is a dc power adapter, middle right is also a dc power adapter. top left is a global power adapter. top right is a power adapter with 2 usb a ports. bottom left is unknown since we don’t know what the other end is.

I think qwant is one? Or maybe it’s just European and not paid.

I also recommend Kagi. I wouldn’t say it’s like the “old internet” but it works and it has amazing features that every search engine should have.

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.