A direct quote from that source:

While there is no clear evidence yet that Tyler Robinson was a formal member of Fuentes’ community, a Facebook photo suggests he engaged with Groyper memes.

I wouldn’t say that is conclusive he was a groyper. Seems we still don’t have enough evidence to figure out what his leanings where

I would make the argument that it could actually be a means to align with affordable housing (although that would likely be very difficult in this current housing market). Managing a property is a service, you have to manage vacancies, repairs, rent collection, etc.

If you don’t offload this to a management company and do it all yourself it is technically feasible to make a profit from the labor of managing the property even when charging below market rate for the property (difficult to do right now, but after owning the property for a period of time definitely possible).

If you were to do this you would be directly combatting the affordable housing problem by introducing competition at a lower price (it would be a drop in the ocean, but it would be fighting for affordable housing).

There is – as far as I’m aware – no good data to suggest any of this is true. The severity of punishment has no correlative link let alone causative link to crime rate. As for “politeness” I don’t even know how to tackle this, I know Japan and Canada are considered “polite” by public opinion and both have stricter gun regulation than US. And as for the great equalizer claim while I can see that theoretically it could be an equalizer of force that would only be the case if the “weak” were as likely to have a gun as the “strong”. If we simply compare women to men – since women are often physically weaker than men – we see the gun ownership rates skew heavily towards men. So if anything in that context not only is it not equalizing it is further dividing the gap between the weak and the strong in this context.

I feel like I get the sentiment you are expressing but I just don’t think it is very logical. You are suggesting that having different laws for different modes of transportation is inherently bad because of the ambiguity it adds. But if we applied this to another situation – a pedestrian in a crosswalk at a 4 way stop it begins to unravel. Should pedestrians also queue up at a stop sign and go during their turn instead of halting all traffic and allowing them to pass?

You say that the start/stop explanation is merely justification, but that’s the whole point, providing justification for why a law should exist.

Your comment about this wouldn’t be a problem if people just followed the law also applies to your original concern of a driver who hits a bicyclist who “effectively ran a stop sign”. If this driver just follows the law then they wouldn’t have done that.

The data is pretty indisputable that traffic incidents are reduced when this thing happens, so I’ll take less drivers hitting bicyclists over more even if the ones that do feel it is unfair.

I’d disagree with the notion “it has to”. The chilling effect on a large number of new wiki contributors could be considered more detrimental than weakening sock puppet protection. (IE if a huge country suddenly started jailing people who make edits not considered state-approved)

I suspect there are plenty of ways to allow new accounts to make edits on a smaller subset of articles until they have passed some threshold of trust which could minimize the sock puppet abuse.

Point is everything is a give and take.

Yes, you were wrong that the original poster was suggesting that mac is the same as chrome is in its structure. They were instead saying macos contributed to poor tech skills just as chrome OS is now. and iPads also contribute to this as Chromebooks do now. They can both contribute to the same cause even if they do it in different ways. Nowhere did they ever come close to mention macos is just as garbage as chrome OS. You added that bit in yourself to strawman. Therefore being “demonstrably wrong”

And that was the entire substance of my discussion, how you were mistaken about the central point.

You are also wrong about the folder structure piece. While yes chromeos technically contains a folder structure and also allows for the user to interact with it. The whole damn operating system is designed around you not needing to do that, in nearly the exact same way phones are. There’s a reason that college professors in computer science departments are so confused why their students don’t know how to use folder structures, and I’d wager quite a lot that chromeos has a large part to play.

So there you go two demonstrable wrongs that have nothing to do with you missing a date

Based on this small exchange it seems like you erect straw men to knock down to inflate your intellectual self worth which is incredibly fragile based on how much you freaked out over a tiny correction that I didn’t use at all in my argument.

If you are actually interested in engaging with the topic try harder to read what I have said

It is rich that you are suggesting this should be about media literacy. How do you connect “what apple did on the 90s” and “what chrome OS did in the 00s” (which it was the 10s, not the 00s) as a direct comparison between operating systems? What the commenter is suggesting is that both google and apple had a hand in making students not prepared to interact with technology, not that they did it in the same way.

I don’t even agree with that statement as I believe being exposed to macs at school (and likely windows at home) woild be beneficial to tech literacy. But you couldn’t even comprehend enough to engage with the point. They were saying macos is not windows, and windows is what kids should be learning. Then you come in and yell and scream about mac being better than chrome.

You were down voted because you were wrong and an asshole

The original commenter compared ipados to chromeos, and they compared osx to windows, I never saw a comparison from osx to chromeos.

The point being made is that modern operating systems often times in the hands of kids (chromeos and ipados) are designed to abstract away much of the underlying elements of the os.

It’s not caused by capitalism but exacerbated by it. The ratio of workers to retirees in 1960 was 5.1 to 1, it’s now 2.1 to 1. Sure if capital wasn’t extracting excess value maybe we could be fine at 2.1 to 1 but I doubt we would be at .5 to 1. At some point it becomes an issue

Just to add full context, if you owe money and fill an extension till October you could have to pay a 25% penalty on what you owe.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-reminds-taxpayers-an-extension-to-file-is-not-an-extension-to-pay-taxes

For anyone who has a Subaru and wants to get rid of this there is an aftermarket part you can install to bypass the telematics radio without losing access to any other features (if you just unplug it I think speakers stop working)

https://www.autoharnesshouse.com/69018.html

It’s $80 for the one that retains the OEM head unit, but I’m thinking that might be worth it.

But my point is that there are certain categories of people who need access to income that they themselves do not produce. An able bodied capitalist is not one of these people, but a worker who is using real estate as a retirement vehicle is.

I don’t disagree that landlords are for the most part acting parasitically. However I would argue that in order for society to function “parasitism” is a requirement. I want to be clear and state that THIS form isn’t required, but some form is.

Let me explain my thinking. Nearly half of the population doesn’t work. The population of non workers can almost entirely fall within these categories: children, attending school, disabled (mentally or physically), or retired.

These populations need money even though they are not producing any. I would guess that most of the extracted profit that comes out of “mom and pop” rentals goes to providing for non-worker expenses.

Now I believe these expenses should be covered by taxations and redistribution of the factor income, but since we have a pathetic system of this in the US it’s hard for me to fault someone for using investment property to hedge against child care and/or retirement

You definitely can max both a 401k and IRA you can also max an HSA. All these combined allow for an individual (not family) to save $34,150 (there are some edge cases I’m ignoring). Someone who can afford to save almost the US median salary amount is almost certainly going to have a higher benefit from traditional than Roth.

Also, the math completely changes if you aren’t maxing because if you aren’t maxing the contribution than adding more to the contribution gives you more tax advantaged investments (instead of taxable brokerage investments).

You seem to be using many different assumptions separately. In the first you assume you are maxing a Roth IRA (in my initial response I was also considering 401ks as many of them have Roth options nowadays). If you are maxing your Roth 401k and Roth IRA you are likely a high earner and therefore likely in a higher tax bracket than you will be in retirement. This means that kind of person will likely prefer traditional investments.

Your assumption there is someone maxing out their retirement options and in a relatively low tax bracket doesn’t seem like reality. So in your math example they wouldn’t be putting the extra in a taxable brokerage account but in the same tax advantaged account.

Quick edit: also I’m confused on the extra $400/year into taxable account. It should be $1,250 per year (25% of the 5,000) which would be closer to $600,000 before the capital gains tax.

I largely agree with all the points made here however I think the overall message is a bit misleading. I would disagree that Roth investments are the preferred for long term investments. You aren’t accounting for the opportunity cost of the taxes paid in the initial investment year. Those taxes, while small compared to what you will withdraw tax free are also losing out on 8x-ing themselves (as you would have invested that amount in a traditional tax advantaged account).

What this means is Roth is the preferable savings method if you are in a lower marginal tax rate than you expect to be in retirement. However traditional is better if you are in a higher marginal rate than you expect to be in retirement. If the marginal tax rate was the same when you invest and retire then the difference between Roth and traditional would be nil.

I see no evidence to suggest that the majority of posters here are not debating in good faith, most posters here seem to me just normal humans who have biases and emotions - but I’d hardly call that bad faith. If you think this low of lemmy and its users I don’t really understand why you are spending time here.

Even if your assumptions of lemmy users where true I don’t see how that affords you the opportunity to discuss without nuance. Discussing in absolutes and without nuance would categorize you in the “weaponize nuance to try and shift goalposts” crowd I’d say.

But you do you

I find it funny you claim there is clearly no debate while having a debate about this. The reason the person linked that article because of a different section:

Unrelated to the economic philosophy described in this article, the term “neoliberalism” is also used to describe a centrist political movement from modern American liberalism in the 1970s. According to political commentator David Brooks, prominent neoliberal politicians included Al Gore and Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party of the United States.[48]

Aha! You might say, it clearly says it is unrelated to the economic philosophy, but the point is that the word can often refer to different things, including Democrats.

Here is another quote from that link:

Neoliberalism is distinct from liberalism insofar as it does not advocate laissez-faire economic policy, but instead is highly constructivist and advocates a strong state to bring about market-like reforms in every aspect of society.

Sounds a lot like the Democrats to me.

As for your talk of comparing European liberals to American liberals being “propaganda” I disagree. I don’t know if this specific movement in lemmy that you speak, but I don’t think it is propaganda to show that one could want to shrink a gigantic government to medium one (European liberal) and they would be the same as someone who wants to expand a small government to medium one (American liberals). Healthcare being an obvious example here: the United Kingdom wanting to privatize NHS could be considered similar to Democrats who want to just regulate an already privatized system. The end state is the similarity not the action taken to get there.

I think this is an interesting discussion and am not trying to prove that European libs are the same as American libs, just proving that there is clearly debate here.