Dear God yes, why the fuck is my Fold trying to install fucking candy crush and a bunch of other games every time it does a software update?! And recently it has a new system app trying to install games as well, that comes back if dismissed in any other way than opening it to get the offers and then clicking on the never option. And apparently never is like 3-6 months according to Samsung, because it does come back.

I really hope the Pixel Fold 2 is a solid phone, because that is where I plan to migrate to after nothing but Samsung phones since the Note 3, which was has been all downhill since TBH (RIP microSD cards).

Same here, and I am hoping that as battery density increases I may be able to extend the range on mine when the car gets old enough for a rebuild.

This was a problem with government owned Volts, they reimbursed for gas as this was already happening for the rest of the ICE fleet but had no way to reimburse for charging. Would not be surprised if this trend is the same for many company fleets too. Fix that and you would probably see similar numbers to private ownership.

https://www.theonion.com/gays-too-precious-to-risk-in-combat-says-general-1819594658

You are correct, everyone is a villain at that point. The problem with that, as horrible this is, is it incentivizes the action. For the same reason countries don’t negotiate with terrorists. If you prove that committing terrorist acts, or taking hostages, or using children as human shields works, you positively reinforce those acts. Its fucked up beyond belief, and all alternatives need to be exhausted, but at some level someone takes the responsibility for where the lines are drawn for the least damage in the long run.

Is it actually preferable to just give money to anyone who hijacks a bus load of people, or a plane, or a bank, etc, so that no hostages are possibly injured when that happens? It might be, and could be argued for. Is such acts becoming more frequent or commonplace because it works an acceptable price weight against innocent human life? Again, it very well might be. It’s only money. I am glad I am not the one making those decisions, but we can’t pretend that the calculus doesn’t happen and/or doesn’t matter.

I like where you’re going here, and the only things I disagree with are the Senate merge and Electoral College as these still serve a purpose. The removal of the House cap will rebalance there, and if anything the Senate could be reverted from popular election back to being appointed by the State Legislatures so they rebalance back to being actual actors for the State as intended vs overpowered Representatives.

The Electoral College helps balance democracy being 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, but maybe get some math experts to review the equation for apportionment and/or set all electors to be proportional to the vote percentages in every state.

If Microsoft can’t figure out how to unlock the taskbar in Win11 so over/under monitor layouts can work (taskbar being bottom/bottom top/top), it will be for me. Drive me up a wall that the whole point of Win11 was a better UI, and basic fucking customization is dropped. I didn’t buy a Mac, don’t try and tell me how I am supposed to set up my desktops.

Even worse is the loss of the basic ability to unlock the taskbar; RIP over/under monitor configurations.

Seems like Trump isn’t the only person with a selectively blind cult judging by the down votes and angry replies. Any opinion that we should be able to do better than Biden around Lemmy gets flamed way too hard to be reasonable.

Your absolutely right. Trump gets a pretty failing grade on 2A rights and from a general libertarian measure, and shouldn’t even be run on republican tickets. As someone who wants more Democrat aligned things like universal healthcare, UBI, police reform, and tax reform, I want those things from a libertarian framestate where those things are the most effective way for the federal government to provide for the common good with the least amount of bureaucracy and government intrusion into citizen’s lives. This means I hold all of my constitutional rights in high regard, the 2nd among them.

I hate having my options being a “choose which rights you least want to lose” adventure game. Since taking the guns is a Democrat plank compared to at least lip service in support at the Republican party level, you get shills like Trump getting the pro gun vote cause he was quiet about it for long enough. Living in the flyovers, I have been voting for my not-anto-gun Democrat at the state level, but I wish i had those options at the House/Senate and Presidental levels too because without RCV my third party votes are basically protest votes. Further off topic, I am getting feed up with more and more libertarian candidates not being libertarian but Christian nationalist lite. The cancer is spreading.

In my case I live in a place where cities are spread out and where it gets cold in the winter. My parents live 40 mile away and don’t have an EV charger or a 220v outlet in their garage. Take 10% max range off in the winter, and I would have to use the only charging station (Tesla supercharger) or spend at least 6 hours charging at their house to be comfortable getting home in case of extra traffic or detours. I semi regularly drive even further, 80-100 miles one way. I’d have to stop to charge on my way there and on my way back in the winter, adding at least 30 minutes to an already 2 hour drive. There is also poor charging density on the route, so it has to be planned.

I drive a plug in hybrid now, and can get to work and home on battery only, but only in the summer and no extra stops or alternate routes are possible. People start getting antsy under a 1/4-1/8th tank of gas, it’s worse with battery. Add to that I am able to charge at home, if you have to go visit a charging station because you live in a ln apartment or townhouse without garage space, you need at least 5 days of charge range between fill ups, because most everyone isn’t going to want to add a 30 minute stop to charge daily.

I sure would, and that is what I’d argue for. I’d love it if both sides would agree to revert to the '67 borders, or even draw up and negotiate new borders if that is required at this point. Both sides have equal “claim” to the area, and this is a needless pseudo-civil war. Without the US and Israel’s surrounding Arab neighbors pouring money and ideology into it, the original '48 plan may have settled into a workable 2 state solution, but who really knows.

I also know that I have no skin in the game on either side, and honestly my opinion doesn’t matter beyond the fact that the US is allies with Israel as a democracy in the middle east that they can leverage towards favorable geopolitical stability, and which I have little power to effect. I just wanted to ask about what appeared to be dishonest propaganda that tries to conflate Israel with foreign colonizers like England, Portugal, Spain, etc, and erase pretty solidly agreed upon paleo and anthropology. We shouldn’t whitewash in either direction.

I think some citation is necessary for the assertion that the Jewish people were not historically from the Levant region, and have no ancestoral “claims” in Jerusalem and the surrounding territory. I would love to see some anthropology studies or papers on the bronze age Israelites being proto-Asyrian or Persian and not one of the Canaanite tribes.

I’d also like to point out that basically every war ever has been and will probably be a land grab, wrapped up in some rationalized or causative skin. That stretch of land in particular has been conquered over and over again throughout human history, and the inhabitants forcibly immigrated and emigrated during many of these changes of power. Mesopotamia has been birthing empires since humans discovered it and it became a cradle of human civilization.

Everyone should vote for whomever represents them best despite whatever letter follows their name, and everyone should know all of their local and state options to be able to do so. Please do the same for your primaries if you at least want a slim possibility of having a decent option. Ranked choice voting would help a lot, but engagement at least helps a little. Hell, third parties got elected this year even.

People blindly straight party ticket voting after skipping the primaries simply because they just hate the other team is how all the shitty entrenched old guard like Pelosi, Manchin, and McConnel (extra especially McConnel, who even republicans hate) stay in power on both sides. And forgetting about the primaries is how we end up with such weak ass candidates as Trump and Biden. It’s so good damn infuriating.

I want limited government focused only on common defense, common good, and keeping the markets free. I feel this is best accomplished through a simple and loophole free tax codes that ensures the wealthy pay their fair share and that all wealth levels are engaged with skin in the game. I believe that this should include a land tax, and that a consumption/sales tax works better than income or wealth tax. These taxes should fund a UBI for all and centralized healthcare, replacing the bureaucratic tangle of our various social safety nets and welfare programs. All monopolies, duopolies, and oligarchies need to be crushed to keep markets free, because the invisible hand needs a paired visible hand to prevent regulatory capture by capital. Drugs should be decriminalized, 2nd amendment rights should be respected, reproductive control should be respected, the government has no business in who married who, religion should be kept to one’s self, and environmental regulation should just ensure clean water, clean air, and long term watershed protection. The market should drive pretty much everything else, with the understanding that unlimited growth is as bullshit as assuming a frictionless sphere in physics. All of these “socialist” programs actually result in functional limited government and maximum individual freedom. It’s not a communist utopia, but I consider it functional Utilitarian Georgist Libertarianism.

First, your username finally clicked and I feel slow for missing it for so long. I actually love it.

Nextly, to also be fair, the existence of a difference between private and personal property isn’t widely known, and China’s implementations of these concepts are even less well known unless someone has been more than toes deep into communist/socialist discussion. Even a lot of “communist” posters don’t have a good grasp on it and can’t really articulate the original intent behind “abolish private property”.

I would like to point out that there are currently enough homes in the US for everyone, and far more vacant homes than our entire homeless population right now. We have major density problems and collusery artificial scarcity that has long crossed over into being illegal and immoral, so we need to be building homes on the scale we did in the post war period. Houses should be much further down the commodity end of the commodity/investment scale, but until we reach a true post scarcity environment (Star Trek levels of post scarcity), I don’t foresee full decommoditization of housing working sustainably.

Lastly, while the communist state really isn’t coming for your toothbrush, obstensively communist countries have overshot going after the landlords and replaced most residential personal property with government landlords. Soviet khrushchevka blocks are a trope for a reason, even if overused.

And thank you for the actual engagement and conversation on this, I appreciate your insights.

Not to be pedantic, but you did write just the broader enforcement of property rights and not private property rights, and I approached it from that broader perspective. Under your clarification, your house does not cease to be your personal property when you leave it for work, but only if the government uses their monopoly of violence to enforce it. And yes, it was a stretch of rhetoric, but not made dishonestly.

The concern is that under this ideal scenario, what happens if you leave you house for a longer term? How does this take temporary moving into account? Examples: I get temporarily transferred for a year to a new city by my job and I fully intend to return to my home after this assignment. Rental homes/apartments aren’t a thing, so I must either buy a dwelling there for a year, or stay in a hotel for a year. If I buy a dwelling, I now own two properties as long as I can afford to pay both mortgages. More likely, I am forced to sell my long term home because I cannot rent it out for that year I am gone. If I do keep it, can I own two separate pieces of personal property or does one become private property because it is not in habitation? I have deprived someone of buying one of them by owning both, and ownership of empty dwellings is usually complained about just as much as renting them. Will my personal property rights be enforced on my vacant home for that year? Should the government allow someone to move in and use my house for that year without my permission or compensation, and only resume enforcing my rights when I move back in? Am I forced to sell and hope that I can rebuy my home when I return? A similar dwelling in an adjacent area may not factor against the sentimental value of a family or generational home. Are any of these parts different if I become temporarily disabled and move in to another person’s home for care. What about a year in the hospital or rehabilitation facility? I don’t think any of these concerns are all that absurd, even if they would affect a small percentage of the population.

You were also seemingly arguing that allowing non-residential private property rights would/should still be enforced so that the capitalist class gets to keep commercial property, unless you are classifying personal, private, and capital property as three distinct categories. Since generally the argument is that private residential property is being used as a rung of capital, I was viewing these as similar enough to be lumped together. It does seem that maybe you were hinting at this being a first step, keep the capital class from revolting while we take out the rentier class, and then move on the remaining private property in swallowable chunks as power is consolidated, which is another reason to view it at a somewhat extreme angle.

Why would anyone pay property tax if property rights stop being enforced? Unless you are actually just giving only the government property rights, allowing the writing and enforcement of evictions, which just makes the government the sole owner of all land the thus the new landlord. Even then, why pay tax when I can just go squat in anyone’s house or building while they aren’t home and it comes down to whoever is stronger getting to stay. Also no point paying tax if someone can just come take it from me. Unless you mean the police actually will enforce property rights for some people but just not others, which just means only those who can afford to employ the police have secure property while the poors just get to duke it out. Unless what you are actually saying is only don’t enforce property rights on secondary building ownership, and then only if that secondary building is not owned by a business that is not providing residential living space. Or are we also breaking up all multi-locatiln businesses the same way?

If everyone risks losing their home every time they leave for work or to get groceries, and only the strongest get to keep the best shelters, the social compact is broken and forming warring territorial clans and insular communities is the end result. Property rights are kind of a keystone for a functional society operating at a size larger than a rural village. It would cause less damage to just make owning more than a single family dwelling illegal, and force everyone to acquire a mortgage to wherever they currently live. This may partially lock your population to wherever they happen to live without finding someone to swap similarly valued dwelling units wherever you want to move to, but there are ways to lessen that impact. Alternatively, the government just seizes all property and doles it out according to whatever the government’s desires are for an area.

Careful now, your about to say the quiet part (we think certain people are too deficient to think for themselves, so we enlightened should do their thinking for them) out loud. Humans don’t have a great track record of dragging the “unenlightened savages” out of their ignorance, kicking and screaming if needs be, and North Americans in particular.

So what you are saying is that everything apparently boils down to two sides wanting nothing more than genocide, as Hamas’ goal since their founding has been the elimination of Israel and the Jews from the middle east. Under that reduction, we just need to choose whether we support a flawed but still functional democracy or another conservative theocracy under Iran in the region. Third option being to pull all support for both sides and just let them destroy each other with a statistically significant possibility of nuclear exchange in the end.

I also would like to know of any other country on earth that would allow a neighboring country to continually launch rockets at it for decades and take no retaliatory action whatsoever, like Israel is somehow an outlier. Is there honestly a realistic expectation that this time would be different if Palestine was given the full Two State system under the original borders? 5th or 6th times the charm on that one? Maybe this time there wouldn’t be another full scale war from all surrounding neighbors, but does anyone actually expect Iran to stop funding or conducting terror attacks on Israel through Palestine, Syria, or Lebanon?