jdksmdbtbdnmsm

Apple and Microsoft would simply never allow that to happen. End of story. The Open Source "community" is hell-bent on finding technical solutions for political problems, and this is the best among countless examples of why it's a hopeless mission from the outset.

Great solution if you're looking to spend hours installing CS6 built for a 1280x720 display, or CS18 (high DPI support) with very buggy operation and constant crashes. I've been there, done that.

Behold our priorities as a society

In a capitalist society, class is the predominant relationship one has with their society.

I know this is pretty obvious and may not entirely answer your question, but many people find it very difficult to swallow this reality these days and I think it's worth reminding.

This is almost entirely just plain false.

Historically mere "movements" don't accomplish anything. You need actual strategy. Not just attention wrangling. The fact that you haven't shared a strategy shows me you're ineffective at anything except wasting peoples' time.

>There are lots of business ventures that are illegal or heavily regulated.

So????

The use of proportions rather than actual totals means the number of recruits could have dropped by that same 12.4% in every category, in which case the focus on race is completely meaningless.

>Another article is more explicit about exactly who isn’t joining the military anymore.

The article doesn't confirm whether the total of any other groups is dropping, but it can be inferred from the numbers given that recruiting is very low across the board. It's worth having a racial remark in the title for clicks alone.

>the little things do add up

This is the first thing that anyone who has actually studied historical societal change would have to disagree with.

In fact, history almost completely shows that organizing one another and acting strategically in unison is the only hope, because there is effectively zero evidence of the "little things" just happening to add up.

In conclusion, you are absolutely full of it. You either don't know you're wrong because you're lying about having done the research, or you did the research and you are intentionally lying about the results.

Is there a contest for the most stuffy and uncomfortable product reveal?

Capitalism is literally defined by the ability to exercise capital to accumulate more of it, which is literally the only way for a monopoly to exist. By definition, capitalism has nothing to do with so-called "free markets".

>price caps make a lot more sense to me.

Will never happen. Comcast has the power, not the politicians. As Marx showed us 150 years ago, a state under capitalism tends to become a capitalist state.

I read Ages of Dischord! I think Peter Turchin has a lot of very valuable insights. Big fan! Also a great book for HN readers. :)

>Why are we doing this?

someone got promoted

>This is why… uh… people started divorcing more?

Yes. Divorce rates inversely correlate with wealth and income measurements. Poor people divorce a lot more than rich people, which is just common sense for any serious person interested in these things. In my experience, Marxists are the only ones who reliably make these obvious connections. I think it's just because they are so concerned with the stranglehold that ecoonomics places on basic societal wellbeing. Almost nobody else seems to take these things seriously.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/divorce/divorce-statist...

that usually depends on who wants to know

it exhibits a capacity to be full of shit with a straight face, which makes grant funders happy so grant reviewers view it as job security

>Same, but why would others live there ?

Because has more theoretical opportunity than where they live and they can't move to Europe. This is not complicated.

Copyright law is a nearly perfect conflict in capitalism because profit by way of merely owning capital also has no moral or logical basis. Legitimation of such a system requires extreme propaganda, and the propagandized then read such nonsense back into things like copyright.

>Really opened my eyes on how much of the law is a compromise between interests and not some argument based on morals or righteous principle.

This applies not only to copyright law, but almost every single aspect of civil existence, and increasingly moreso every day.

>demand can be specific to a price point

This only illustrates that you don't know what demand is, in the context of economics.

>Fairly self evident.

Not even close

>Far fewer married people, many want to live in apartments

This has nothing to do with owning a home.

>others enjoy renting houses for a few years at a far cheaper rate than being locked into a dwelling

Source? In my 40 years on this Earth, I have not once met a single person in such a condition for more than a few years at most.

>A careful glance at any of the academic research around housing corroborates this.

Bullshit. Show me a single instance of such research. You are making some truly outrageous claims.

Not a chance, which is why housing prices aren't going down in any parts of the US, including the vast majority of the US that has none of the "California-style" laws that insufferable developers like you despise.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is the opportunity to exercise capital to accumulate more capital.

A robot ran for president in 2016 and lost.

Looking at the data made available by this API, I think it's safe to say this is fine.

I didn't say anything about living here. See "investment real estate"

>do you expect the 40% price hike during Covid to become permanent?

Definitely. US real estate is literally the best investment real estate in the entire world, and it's availabile to the entire world. Prices definitely won't be going down.

Edit: This comment has nothing to do with whether or not the US is a desirable place to live. The value of US real estate is tremendous simply because the US dollar is the hegemonic international currency and the US holds the only meaningful military power in the west. And finally, one does not have to live in a property to invest in it.

>A shift towards more short term rentals is also reducing the demand for homeownership.

Honestly what on Earth are you talking about??? Your logic is not clear at all, and if you're truly trying to claim that less people want to own houses then you need to make an argument because that is an outrageous claim.

a short throw probector is far more cumbersome and inconvenient than a tv in that situation