https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDcFIP7ImVU

Serious question: what is a US multinational?

I’ve never fired a weapon at a live animal larger than a house fly, but I have played hunting games and this is useful information.

Inflation isn’t determined solely by mortgages.

It’s not exclusive. A twelve year old yelling slurs into their microphone is easily detectable using modern technology. Why not?

The 3D printed watches are prototypes. Here’s what the shipped product looks like: https://twitter.com/BitBangingBytes/status/1695192177310150993

deleted by creator

Please hear me out – wouldn’t requiring females who identify as men and look like men, to use women’s washrooms, be virtually indistinguishable from a cis man using women’s washrooms? It seems like this law might actually result in more manly-looking folks in the women’s washroom, as all trans men would be required to.

Also, how do you enforce that? Is there going to be someone checking ID at the door, but only if you look “manly?” In that case, wouldn’t a male who identified as a woman, and looks like a woman, be able to slip by undetected anyway, or is this “bathroom bouncer” going to check everyone’s IDs?

Even if I agreed with the thesis that people born with penises shouldn’t be allowed in women’s washrooms (and I don’t), any implementation seems like it has far too many flaws to be remotely effective.

Instead, how about bathrooms have actual, private rooms instead of stalls with doors you can see over, under, or around? Wouldn’t that be a more practical solution to the problem of bathroom privacy?

Thanks for reading. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

After her last day of school, before her last day of exams. Sounds like a position of trust to me… Did she even have her final marks in his class while they were texting each other?

Yeah, if you have an axe to grind…

Yes, the article mentions the control group, too. What they don’t mention (and I’m curious about) is whether the savings figure quoted was gross or net? I’ll quote another comment in this post since I’m not sure how to properly link it.

Those who got the payment did not spend more money on “temptation goods,” spent 99 fewer days homeless, increased their savings and spent less time in shelters which “saved society” $777 per person, according to a news release from UBC.

“Is that gross or net savings? That is, is the $7500 included and there was a net savings, or was there a net cost of $6723?”

Any idea, from skimming the actual study?

Neutral Good and Chaotic Good should be swapped, no?

Please grow up, soon.

“the housing market in 2023”

Could you explain what you mean by that? I’d like to understand more but that’s a very broad statement.

Obviously the housing market is bad for buyers and renters currently. How can we differentiate between the primary cause being independent landlords, and there being insufficient supply? Both would have the effect of high prices, right? Therefore, more evidence is required to be persuasive.

Again, I remain open to being convinced, and once convinced would gladly be a staunch advocate for your position! My apologies if I’m missing something obvious. I really am sincerely trying to understand the argument for taxing independent landlords as a solution to our housing crisis.

Sounds like DMCA abuse to me. You can’t copyright a fact. In this case, the fact that these IPs are used by a company is a fact.

Trader Joe’s is cheap?

Cooking at home ain’t really fast, not compared to a fast food joint at least.

If they don’t increase the amount of housing, then they don’t decrease it either, right? They effectively move a house that would be bought by a home buyer, to a house that would be rented by a renter.

I can see how given the argument that landlords generally make profit, that they are a needless middleman, and therefore they contribute to higher housing costs. Is there any evidence that this impact is so substantial that regulating independent landlords will be a boon for consumers of housing?

I appreciate you sharing your perspective! I remain open to be informed as to how such a policy would help the housing crisis.

Sincere question: how would this help renters? It seems to me that this would discourage people from buying investment properties to rent out, and increase the supply available to buyers. While this would make it cheaper to buy, it seems like it would make it more expensive to rent, unless one or more of the following is true:

1. A significant number of units are sitting empty, owned by speculators, rather than being rented. out (plausible, but I haven’t seen proof - is there any?)
2. Landlords are colluding to keep prices high (unlikely given that there are hundreds of thousands of independent landlords per StatsCan)
3. For some reason besides collusion, free-market pricing is otherwise inapplicable to rent prices (why could this be?)

If you or anyone else would kindly shed some light on this for me, I would gladly join your cause. As it stands, I’m currently more of an advocate for building public housing to increase the supply of both rental and purchase units, rather than adjusting the bias of what units we already have towards ownership over rentals.

Metasploit becomes your “decompiler”.