I always get the feeling that D&D’s Forgotten Realms is a more goofy kind of fantasy, like everything you want is possible. It’s about imagination and self-expression, rather than setting strict rules for how things work. Makes sense imo, they want it to be the world that you use to create your own stories for P&P games, so it should have many different facets and can’t be too limiting.

For me personally: Something like Arch. I want to spend as little time as possible on installation and configuration, and I don’t want to have to read update notes or break my system. But I get that it’s great for some people, and their wiki is just next level!

In general: Ubuntu. It feels like I read something about Canonical causing trouble every other week, and don’t even get me started on snaps!

Which had me wondering for the first time I hearing about “The Year of the Linux Desktop”, what percentage do we have to hit for this to be the year?

Imo it’s more of a list of things that need to happen, like some mainstream games, apps and devices getting 1st-party Linux support. I suspect this to start happening around the 20% mark, but ofc that’s just a guess.

When I downloaded my Google Photos content I just grabbed the links and added them to JDownloader, which can usually resume partial downloads. There are also download manager extensions for most browsers, maybe give one of those a try.

Ok so, if you’re not willing or able to separate different ideas and concepts, then this discussion makes little sense imo. Drowning a very specific question in your ideology is not the way to actually get a good and truthful answer.

Thanks anyway for your time and effort, have a good one!

hard disagree. we have to examine things as they exist in the real world, not as we would like them to be.

I don’t get why you keep trying to spin this as some sort of fairytail. Separating different things to figure out their role in an overall system is a completely normal and useful thing to do. If your car is broken you don’t just throw it on the scrap yard, or even declare cars in general non-functional. You look inside and figure out which part is the problem. And you can attribute the failure of the car to one part and declare the others functional, even if you’d never see those parts driving alone on the highway (although I gave you examples of that for rent). This is not a matter of facts vs fiction, this is about keeping separate things separate and not mixing things up, correlation vs causation and stuff.

also disagree. why are these university students renting? schools could be providing housing to students if we invested public funds into that kind of project […]

That’s not an argument against rent, that’s an argument against students having different means and having to pay for things in general. Why do students have to pay for food themselves? Why do they have to do their own house work when others can afford to hire someone? Those are all good questions, but they only concern rent in so far as it’s also a thing people pay money for.

lets just go through this […]

There is so much wrong with this that I don’t even know where to begin.

Resources are not always limited, not in an economic sense. If there are more houses than people wanting to live in them then houses are essentially “unlimited”, in the sense that you’d probably need to pay someone to take it off your hands. Owning a house also has costs attached to it, and you’d probably have a hard time covering those costs with earnings from rent in this case. People owning property in places no one wants to live in can attest to that.

Rent doesn’t require private ownership. Property can be owned and rented out by public entities, and that’s actually pretty common.

The rest is a gross oversimplyfication of the matter, as well as a logical error. You argue that X is in the equation, X requires private property, ergo private property is the problem. That’s just wrong, or at least not compelling. As an example, burglars require air to live, but the problem of burglaries cannot simply be reduced to the existence of air.

And uhm … the universe is infinite as far as we know, but that’s another discussion entirely.

this is a problem of terminology

Ok, could be that we mean the same thing. I personally think that a certain level of private ownership is necessary in order to establish responsibilities and solve disputes. E.g. if I own my house then I get to decide what to do with it, but I also have to be the one to take care of it. That might be what you’re calling personal ownership, while I’d just say that’s private ownership within healthy limits.

Google can’t track the videos you watched using Piped, all they see is the Piped server fetching it from them to deliver it to you. Also no ads, and you can control things like recommendations to not get sucked into an endless YT loop.

rent doesn’t exist in principle, it exists in practice. and in practice, the history of rent is a history of wealth extraction

This is a completely useless stance when you want to figure out if rent itself is morally good or bad.

There are a lot of instances of rent today that are completely fine. For example, my parents rent 2 rooms of their appartement to university students, and they just ask for a share of the costs they have, proportional to the size of the rooms. That is rent, but free of other influences like profit maximization, and all parties seem to be very happy with the arrangement. Or if you rent a tool or car from a local company, you’ll pay mostly for a share of the acquisition and repair costs, and a bit on top so the owners and employees of the company can keep the lights on. There is absolutely nothing wrong about this form of rent.

If you’re saying that rent + limited supply + capitalistic profit maximation + corruption is a problem, then I absolutely agree with you, but it would be false to blame that on the rent part of that equation. And I would definitely not go as far as saying that private property in general is bad, expecially not very limited private ownership like a person owning the house they live in or part of the company they work for. Too much concentration of ownership is a problem, not the concept of ownership itself.

What kind of f*cked up argument is that? I don’t think the climate models were quite as advanced back then.

They had no idea that influencing the global climate was even a possibility, so you can hardly judge the morality of their decision-making by how much CO2 they produced. Or do you want to blame them for not building enough solar panels as well?

The problem with capitalism in this regard is not that it produced a lot of CO2 back in the days, but that it won’t stop even after learning about the destructive effects.

I’m talking about rent in principle, not how it is often perverted today. You can make just about anything immoral if you add price gauging and not-fulfilling-contractual-obligations to it. There are a lot of rents with fair prices, e.g. almost everything that’s not housing, but also apartments from social housing or housing associations.

Because of the sentence before the one you quoted. I’m sorry, but this is getting silly.

And you are accusing me of not properly supporting my claims??

This is going into feasability and away from morality, but ok.

The law is the “mutually agreed contract”, and the usage created the dept. You can be expected to know that the design of a bridge might be copyrighted, you can’t be expected to know that a bridge is private property and crossing it requires a fee. Ergo it’s on you to contact the owner of the design, and it’s on you to collect a fee from people using your bridge if that is what you want to do.

No it’s not. Why should someone let you stay in a building they payed and/or worked for, without you paying for a share of the upkeep, repairs, insurance etc., and the fact that the building exists in the first place?!

Who says you can only owe something if you take something away first?

Think about how rent works. The building or appartement will still be there, loose value over time and need repairs whether you live there or not, yet you still owe the owner rent if you do.

Yes, of course. They created the design, it cost them time and money, you want to use it, so you should pay part of those costs. Or to put it differently: You both use the design, why should they be the ones to pay for its creation, and not you?

I pay taxes, those were used to pay the people who build the bridge. And yes, taxes should be fair. If it’s a private bridge then the owners have every right to demand a fee for crossing it.

Idk what to tell you but: Yes it does. We can’t really argue if you refuse to elaborate your point.

The justification was that creating things has a cost, even if a copy doesn’t, and that we should distribute that cost as fairly as possible among the people benefiting from the creation.

What unjustified claim did I make that you disagree with? Seems all rather uncontroversial to me.