This isn’t really about winning or losing (defined by what, exactly? Upvotes? Lol)

It’s good argument on differing ideas.

And I only mentioned price caps because you mentioned capping houses owned. Not my intention to strawman you.

You’re saying there’s plenty of homes as if they are natural resources to be distributed. They aren’t. Someone who spends money to build the homes and covers the costs necessary to even start building the homes need to get their return.

Even if they are natural resources to be distributed and enough houses already exists, what are you proposing? Just give the homes away?

You’re paying a house and now its worth is more than double the amount you paid 17 years. Sorry, you’re an idiot if you think there’s a “correct” price of anything. That’s the point of prices in market economy. They rise and fall depends on countless economic circumstances. I don’t think your old house lives in a vacuum not affected by the economic changes surrounding your town/city or neighborhood.

If you’re thinking about housing price cap, let’s even stop this discussion because clearly you are not familiar about macroeconomic causes and effects.

What if it’s yellow? That’s what I want to find out.

Limiting the number of homes people can own will reduce the incentives for people or real estate developers to build more. You may end up with lower supply of homes, which may drive up price.

Modern economies usually depends on economies of scale to make profits. Imagine if a law was passed to limit the number of groceries people can buy in a supermarket because the government think it’ll help poor people by hoping the law will drive down price. This would probably backfire, prompting the supermarket to buy less from distributors, and sell at a higher price because now they can’t count on economies of scale.

In short, I’m saying your solution is naive.

Ideal reality: Google doesn’t buy advantage from browsers to make their search engine the default. This way, other search engines can compete at the same level, right?

Reality: browser developers will have their income cut down because now their main source of income is dead (see recent news on Mozilla).

Usually these kinds of policies that may or may not come up out of goodwill results in unintended consequences that negatively affect others.

The winner here are the politicians.

I’m with you on this.

In this thread are people who screams monopoly, thinking they know what it means. One comment said Google is a monopoly, followed by “along with <other giant companies>”

They’re giants because they’re successful and good at what they do. They’re successful because people are benefiting and find values from the products they use. The moment these giants stops “exploiting” people will be when they stop bringing values to society.

They’ve confused economic reality with their own ideal reality.

Source?

I remember this guy! First fallout game I played, my friend introduced it to me and let me borrow his disk for the PS3.

This is probably the first boss I’ve fought and in my memory it’ll always be an intense battle.

That you pay for just 5 dollars per month.

I’d like to go back and play the AC series. Played from the first AC to this one, and stopped because of burnt out.

Now it seems like I’ve been missing a lot and skipping some games to continue to the latest games feels like I won’t be able to enjoy the series.

Have you tried perplexity.ai? Using it to do some programming and it’s quite good so far. It’s basically LLM + Search Engines.

You can also use it to use different models (not just with ChatGPT).

Sometimes even run the code itself (Python for my case) and see if it’s valid.

Hole. Future. Now.

I don’t think that’s convenient for him. Let’s email him for his consent.

Sold. I will watch Skibidi Toilet and perhaps discuss the lore with my 6 year old nephew.

Was thinking this looks familiar, and somehow it’s related to Linux. So it is!

What’s the tech stack you work with with that setup?

So, uh, how do you live in modern society?

Shameful is very much an understatement…

Looks like a footnote. I’m curious, where’s this from?

But open-source doesn’t always mean working for free, nor does it mean people do it for purely ethical (or socialist?) reason.

There are lots of reason why open-source is attractive after discounting ethics and money. I imagine being credited for being a major contributor to a popular open-source project would mean better job opportunity in the competitive tech job market. The gig doesn’t directly offer you money, but it does gravitate the right company that has the money to fund your work they find very valuable. In a sense, this isn’t that far from how capitalism work – credits are due to the people who brings most value to the society, whether the source of the software are open to all or not.

This is of course a very superficial statement to make, but I remember Eric Raymond wrote about this in more a detailed (and more convincing!) manner in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.