Headline makes it sound like he’s managed to get out of it somehow, but in fact he’s just literally been dodging being served; he’s still pretty fucked.

Big demographic difference between Facebook and Lemmy, wouldn’t you say?

This thread is about financial fines, not jail time, but regardless, here’s the ‘The Formula’ scene from Fight Club. This is effectively how it works in the real world. The money isn’t paid back.

But instead of giving up, we should be trying to fix these issues.

Genuine question - how long do you think we should try to fix the issues before coming to the conclusion that they can’t be fixed through conventional means? Do you think we should resort to nonconventional resolutions at all, if the conventional ones cease to function or don’t yield results? If not, why not?

An ear or a tooth that would contribute towards satisfying your quest, but inexplicably only 10% of the time.

recently i started telling candidates right in the first interview that greptile offers no work-life-balance, typical workdays start at 9am and end at 11pm, often later, and we work saturdays, sometimes also sundays. i emphasize the environment is high stress, and there is no tolerance for poor work.

The fact that he ever gets through that interview without the candidate laughing themself right out of his office is just baffling.

Software engineers at the company can expect to make $120,000 to $200,000 per year, according to job postings on Greptile’s website.

So that’s the equivalent of 60k-100k at a job where you can work normal hours. I could see this maybe if he was paying more than twice the market rate for more than twice the normal amount of work, but he’s not. Not even close.

I singled her out because she’s the easiest person to get stuck seeing on the front page, so it quite literally and unavoidably feels in your face, thus it’s a bit of a meme right now to cite her.

I had to search for her to figure out who you meant; I’ve watched some of her content, but she’s nowhere near my front page. This is just the YouTube algorithm working against you. You can choose ‘Don’t recommend channel’ to avoid seeing her videos if you don’t want to.

I feel like this comment of yours is a jab against me

It’s not, I just assumed (apparently correctly) that you had a specific perspective since you called her (and only her) out by name.

The only way to guarantee that you don’t cause a paradox is to not use the power at all.

Why don’t you tell us about your own experience with Mormonism and how it differs from Alyssa’s?

If you teleport to it and back, that’s way more valuable than anything you’d actually be buying. I’d just use it for that purpose exclusively. Choose a plot of land to “buy” that’s calculated to a specific timeframe, matching how long I wanted to be there. “I want 200 square feet in Norway.” Day trip to Norway, let’s go!

I’d argue that the taxes are a separate cost, which would be paid separately rather than being included in the “purchase price” you’re using your dollar to offset. In OP’s example, the TV requires electricity to run, but the cost of that electricity is (presumably) not bundled into the purchase price. Just like maintenance on the house would not be included up front, as it’s a separate, additional cost.

If you reject that, I’d argue that the land will exist well beyond the fall of civilization, and at some point, there won’t be a government to tax it. It will, however, still exist. If the land costs $400,000, and taxes are $10k / year, and we expect Earth to last about 8 billion years, and we expect government taxing the land to exist for, say, generously, 10,000 of those years, that’s only a net cost of $0.0125 per year. In this case, the land itself only costs $0.00005 per year, so you could buy quite a lot of things for your dollar, in fact.

Buy a plot of land, preferably with a house on it. If you assume that the land will last until the death of the planet, even if it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to ‘buy’, $1 / day worth of that would still last you for your lifetime. If it doesn’t last that long, you could calculate the length of time until the death of the planet (or of the human race) by dividing the time you got it by the price in dollars, and that’d be valuable information, too. Bonus points if you only keep it for a few minutes.

This guy has posted this exact same thing at least 3 times in the last 2 days, on different communities, from different accounts. It keeps getting deleted, he keeps re-posting it. Don’t support this shit.

I always liked Radiohead - Just.

Twenty One Pilots’ videos have ragged continuity from song to song, and tell a pretty out-there story. Example song: Twenty One Pilots - Nico and the Niners

Anyone posting something on Mastodon can tag a lemmy community to mirror the post there as a new post. It ends up looking a bit strange (it’s obvious it was a Mastodon post), as hashtags end up in the title.

it’s that you are attacking very specific peripheral claims

I’m countering the claims you’re making. I’m not going to intuit your arguments. If you want to clearly state your argument in its totality, I’ll address it in its totality.

Your original claim was:

The real issue is not that current landlords are exceptionally greedy (the rules of capitalism assume and encourage everyone to be as greedy as possible), it’s that there isn’t enough housing stock to give everyone who wants one a unit.

The article you linked above did not support this argument, as it said the majority of people in that age range living with their parents are doing so because they don’t make enough money or don’t want to give money to a landlord, not that there isn’t housing available to rent.

The fact that you’re trying to exclude houses that are available for rent (presumably for prices that people can’t afford) from the above stated numbers is yet another example of moving the goalposts because, based on your original stated argument, those should be included in the discussion.

If you narrow your argument enough times, you’ll find something that’s not easily countered - obviously. “There’s 20 million people who want to live in Manhattan, but there’s not enough units for them!” would technically be correct, but it’s a worthless argument to make. Yes, some people will end up living outside of their ideal best case scenario, but you know what? I think getting everyone into houses is the first step, and we can work on improving the location of those houses second. Someone who’s unemployed and unhoused in LA could be unemployed and housed in San Diego and their situation would be immensely improved.

You are moving the goalposts every time you post. First there’s not enough housing to give everyone a unit. Provided a link that counters that claim. Then the vacant housing is derelict / decrepit. Provided link that counters that claim. Then the housing isn’t in the city. Provided link that counters that claim. Then there’s not enough housing in LA specifically to cover the homeless population (which I will note includes a lot of folks who were sent to LA from elsewhere in the country after becoming homeless).

You can keep making excuses and changing your argument all you want, but the fact of the matter is, there’s a lot of housing that isn’t being used, or that’s being priced too high to accommodate the people who need it. In fact, if you include that latter statistic, there’s plenty of vacant housing in LA, even - 171,353 homes vs. your stated 75,518 homeless. You’re going to an awful lot of trouble to attempt to find an argument supporting your view, and you haven’t linked a single source for any of it.

Maybe consider that perfect doesn’t need to be the enemy of good?

There are no such things as habitable off-market ready-to-move-in vacant homes in the city.

Just look at the link, man. Everything under ‘Seasonal’ is habitable and off-market.

but it still represents tens of millions of Americans.

From the linked article:

According to the U.S. Census, there are approximately 17 million vacant houses across the nation.

If a house is vacant, it’s probably because it’s subject to a legal dispute, derelict and uninhabitable, slated for demolition, for sale, or being used for short-term rentals (which should also be banned but that’s only tangentially related).

What’re you basing that on? Because the US census bureau disagrees:

But the largest category of vacant housing in the United States is classified as “seasonal, recreational or occasional use,” commonly referred to as seasonal units. These vacant structures cover a wide range of housing units, from part-time residences and hunting cabins to beach houses and timeshares.

Point is, there’s plenty of housing, but greed - either people who own multiple houses and do not rent them out, or people who have them up for rent or sale but have priced out a large part of the nation, is creating an artificial scarcity.