MystikIncarnate

joined 2 years ago
[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Let me say this, as an "elder" millennial. This isn't the first time government puppets have touted some plan for affordable housing.

You know what I've seen throughout all of those adorable housing plans? Prices going up, property sizes shrinking, materials becoming cheaper and less durable, houses becoming less unique.

So you "get to" buy a smaller home, that looks like every other home, that was built poorly and will need repairs sooner, and for all of this, you get to pay more for the "privilege".

I hope I'm wrong, but I've heard this song before.

The only way you will ever get an affordable home is when someone you know, who owns a home, dies, and leaves it to you in their will.

If that happens to anyone, my advice: take it, keep it, fix it, and never leave it. You'll only fuck yourself over if you do. I don't care how much the house is "worth" on the market. Never sell. It's literally the only way you'll own a home outright, without killing yourself with working overtime to afford it.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Politicians keep saying "affordable housing" then have zero scruples about selling a large portion of whatever housing they make, at bargain basement prices, to landlords.

I've seen this play before.

How about this, if any one person owns more than two "single family" dwellings, their property tax on the third property is 1000% increased... And add a zero for every additional property.

It won't fix the problem, but it will sure as shit make it harder for a handful of people to own a nontrivial percentage of the residences in a city.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago

This is why I demand work from home.

I hate commuting.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

This was my thought.

Mfers be out here debating whether the thing depicted is actually a "two sided" dice, meanwhile coins just be chillin over there getting ignored.

Y'all be trippin.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 weeks ago

Thanks, I hate it.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Last time I checked, people didn't found their core belief system around whether prisoners of war existed or not.

Even so, there's tangible proof of him being there, by his physical body being there, when it happened. This can be proven by science. Obviously that's not able to be proven after he was released from the camp, and yes, we have to take the scribbles on a page to know it happened.

I will give you that.

For anything that is a universal truth, like gravity, chemistry, the properties of light, electricity, and all the principles behind electronics engineering, etc.... All of that is provable. Lived experiences, history, sure. We have to accept that what we're reading is true or not. But that's a choice.

Science, which defines pretty much everything that's happening, why is happening, and how it can happen, is immutable.

The idea of "God" has no basis more reliable than someone's report of it happening. For something so universal/omnipotent, the fact that the only "evidence" that it happened is in a book, yet this God has a plan for you right now, but you can't know it because God won't tell you, nor do anything outside of what physics/Science says can/will happen, isn't evidence of the existence of such a deity, regardless of what someone calls "God".

All other things that exist, the forces that act on those things, and all of the possible outcomes of that thing existing can be proven by science. God cannot be proven, by science or otherwise.

Even history, to some extent, can be proven, because the evidence still exists. You can visit auschwitz, and see where history happened from WW2. You can see the damage from bombs and gunfire in structures that were standing when conflicts happened. There's still evidence for a lot of that. And again, the same cannot be said for any book about any deity.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

You see, the steamer depicted may not be the exact subject matter they're referring to. They might have just googled female streamers, or loaded up Twitch and looked for the first girl on camera and snapped a screen shot.

With all that being said, I understand the appeal of wanting to watch something that you think is pretty. Hell, that's the entire reason I played cyberpunk as a female character despite being very cis, and male.

For 90% of game play my gender doesn't matter. Until cutscenes where I get to watch my avatar interacting with others.

Outside of cutscenes, I'm looking first person, so what difference does it make?

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago

I think that at least 7 people didn't understand what you were trying to say.

I did. Well said. I can't see any problems with your argument.

Though, I think that maybe the green text was more about female streamers in general, not just the one that's depicted.

Whichever. Be well.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Originally, that's probably how they started putting those words together in that order.

I'm talking about the idiom of it being applied to anything that isn't a literal slope that's slippery. Like using it to describe that doing thing a will very easily create a situation where another thing is likely to happen.

Eg: smoking weed is a slippery slope to using harder drugs.

(It's not, but I'm sure we've all heard some version of the above before.)

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

a lot of things.

🤔

Science doesn't work that way. There's provable and repeatable experiments and proofs that you can independently verify.

Last time I checked most things that aren't metaphysical (like philosophy), have some relationship with science, and therefore, only requires that you go through the motions to prove it yourself by creating your own reproduction of an test/experiment/proof....

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In my experience, Plex struggles with the same. Depends on the series.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago

I don't. There's just a nontrivial number of people I care about that use Plex that don't know enough about technology to handle something like jellyfin.

Losing years of watched data isn't great, but ultimately it's small potatoes.

A big part of the reason I wanted to set up Plex to begin with, was so that my friends and family didn't have to waste their time downloading the stuff that all of us want to watch.

They don't demand anything, I want them to be able to use it because I care about those people. If switching to jellyfin is too difficult for the non-techs I care about, then I'll keep rolling with Plex.

view more: ‹ prev next ›