Good thing you aren’t making policy.

If your policy change is going to harm the less fortunate then you should re-evaluate the policy.

A land value tax just shifts those who can’t afford it out of their homes and hands more land over to the wealthy.

Land isn’t the problem with housing. The problem is that developers have figured out it’s more profitable to build fewer expensive properties than a large number of affordable ones. Not only do they have to do less work, but it keeps the market artificially low and so lets them charge more for what inventory they do have.

So they do just that.

And the residential development market has such a huge investment level to enter you won’t see many willing to roll the dice on mass producing affordable housing.

Show me a home builder who has plans which are less than 3k sqft these days. You won’t find one.

No way. That would fuck over way too many people who are just trying to live out their lives in the home they’ve built/purchased/inherited.

That critical mass will never come because people don’t feel the data has been stolen from them.

Rather, it’s traded in exchange for whatever online services they use.

And to them it’s a decent trade.

And then Brigitte was released and I ran around curb stomping chumps while screaming mace to the face.

I miss those days before they murdered my girl.

I never watched x-files when it aired.

I tried to watch it a few years back but only made it to season 2. Maybe it gets better later, but the show was so formulaic that I grew bored of it pretty quick.

A lot of people.

I’m not giving up mobile deposit.

Leave my house? Duck that.

This comment is the equivalent of some guy telling you that you’ll be paid in exposure and that the exposure is going to be worth way more than money in the long run, just trust me bro.

Nah, it was fine.

Yeah, but I didn’t care about any of that.

Naw, lots of us stopped when Netflix streaming came in full swing.

Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.

If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.

There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.

All nations are built and maintained by violence, either directly or by threat of it.

It's a core component of sovereignty. To be able to call your government sovereign you must have the capacity to resist both external and internal actors from being able to overthrow you.

You must also be willing and able to use violence against those under your rule who disobey your laws (i.e, arresting a murderer).

Good. Embrace me technology.

Where do they 'pull out' to exactly?

It's true, game prices today are the same as they have been for the past 40 years for AAA titles.

I can't think of an industry which hasn't had a price raise in decades.

Gaming had managed to get by on this thanks to increasing market volume as gaming became more mainstream in addition to extra revenue streams like micro transactions. But it's hitting saturation now and won't keep counteracting inflation forever