The brain is not a singular thing or impulse. Different neurons fire causing desire for different things at the same time (ie. I want to eat candy, I want to lose weight, I want to sit down, I want my house clean).
Some part of the brain calls itself the decision maker and calls itself you, but that doesn’t mean the brain is in agreement or that the decision maker controls the rest of it.
In the end, the KIA car company made its cars into subscription models, I really hate this because in the end the car we buy with our own money doesn’t feel like it belongs to us. Should we finally buy an old school car ? so as not to be affected by this subscription models or is there a way to crack the software installed in...
My car has remote lock and unlock on a FOB, no reason for an app and subscription.
I also get the feeling that the diagnostics are done on board by the car, it’s just refusing to give you the information unless you’re paying the sub.
What I DO find embarrassing is when people find out that they’re pronouncing something differently and flat out disagree with the world about its actual pronounciation.
Man, you must be embarrassed all the time when you hear British or American people talk.
Somehow the world can survive and we can understand one another with very different pronunciations of words like “Aluminum”, but this… THIS WILL NOT STAND!
Island was originally spelt without an ‘s’. It was later added as a stylistic choice and is now the “correct” spelling. Language doesn’t give a fuck about original intent. If you want to be originalist about it then you need to hie back to corky English
Yes, thousands of years of established language development is wrong
Yes, it is. Island has an ‘s’ in it as a stylistic choice to Latinize a word that has no Latin root. Literally is now defined as “not literally” which is absurd. That’s established language development.
If people keep using “it’s” as possessive then it will become possessive, and nothing will be lost.
Language sticklers are an interesting phenomenon to me
It’s weird if you think about it. They’re basically saying “English was exactly correct at an arbitrary moment in time that I chose.” Anything different before that (such as ‘iland’) is wrong, but any new changes are an abomination.
I do? But I also support laws that heavily tax owning secondary properties. Building more houses is not helpful if they just get purchased by landlords.
If being a landlord is profitable where do you think that profit comes from? Logically landlord’s need to be making housing more expensive so they can get their cut.
And where does this return on investment come from?
To put it another way: if a law was passed that owning a property you don’t live on is going to become illegal, there would suddenly be a lot of cheap property on the market.
Only if they’re selling the house. Owning builds equity but you can’t live off that unless you sell the asset to get access to the money. In order to live off of it the profit has to come directly from the renters.
I don’t understand the law you’re proposing.
It was a hypothetical to prove a point, not an actual proposed law. I would propose a significant tax increase on any residential land a person owns but doesn’t live on. This would have no affect on hotels, resorts, lodges etc. because there is a well defined difference between commercial and residential. This would affect apartment buildings by heavily encouraging the owner to live in one of the apartments, which would also encourage them to keep everything in the building running smoothly.
There’s a limit to how many people are interested in staying in hotels in a city.
There’s also the zoning issues between residential and commercial.
There’s also the fact that it’s far easier to buy a residential home and rent it than it is to tear it down, build a hotel, hire staff, and operate an actual business.
I realize you have a knee jerk need to defend landlords and reject anything that interferes with them making a profit of other people’s basic need for shelter, but try to take a moment to think if your argument sounds in any way reasonable before just throwing it out there.
Someone who legitimately thinks “People will just replace houses with hotels” is not someone I’m going to look to for advice on this subject. Hotels are already more profitable for their owners than rental properties. If what you suggested was in any way feasible it would already be happening.
If you implement this, people will be living long term in hostels in 6 people dorms because the landlords are not required to live in them.
First, “This law that doesn’t exist has a loophole” is a stupid argument. I’m not proposing the full legal text of the law, that would be for the government to figure out. Any imaginary loophole you come up they can also predict and not allow (include “hostel” on the list of properties the owner needs to also live on. Boom. Done.)
Second, you are suggesting people who currently live on their own will suddenly live in 6 person dorms. So what happened to those other 5 houses those people were living in? Are they also filled with 6 people dorms and we’ve magically created 6 times the population out of nowhere? Are they empty because they’ve been purchased by people who don’t live there (you know, the entire problem here) who are now paying taxes on properties with no occupants until they are forced to sell?
Stupid brain (lemmy.world)
I love those path (lemm.ee)
I hope someday we'll find a way to pirated a car (lemmy.world)
In the end, the KIA car company made its cars into subscription models, I really hate this because in the end the car we buy with our own money doesn’t feel like it belongs to us. Should we finally buy an old school car ? so as not to be affected by this subscription models or is there a way to crack the software installed in...
If only there was a GOOD fish with a gun to save them! (startrek.website)
Have mercy on our souls (sh.itjust.works)
It can't be stopped (startrek.website)
The system is broken (lemmy.zip)
Lemmy about to implode. (lemmy.world)