You misspelled Alfas.

Concur. I use Duplicati-> Backblaze.

Sounds about white.

Says the person taking the time to reply.

How does one tell the difference between someone who’s legitimately more attracted versus someone fetishizing them?

Oh you didn’t know? NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ decides and will be sure to let you know.

Edit: It’s true! It’s on page 6 of the Book of Blowhard, 16th edition.

So, yes.

I’m curious. Have you always been a complete jackass?

You are overlooking the pollution the emit while running, which is considerable, especially 2-stroke ones. A gas leaf blower used for an hour emits the same air pollution as driving 1,100 miles (source).

And the fact that that oil has to be changed periodically. They also have many plastic parts AND small engines have a notoriously high failure rate when used with ethanol fuels.

Meanwhile, the electric motors in battery ones basically run forever and properly cared for the batteries last many years, after which they can be recycled.

Username checks out.

According to the Boring Company, the LVCC loop has a “demonstrated peak capacity” of 4,500 passengers per hour but only 32,000 passengers per day. I don’t know the reason for the discrepancy - I assume there are operational limitations or it doesn’t run 24h/day or something. But to my mind we have to use the 32k figure, which yields a paltry 1,333 passengers per hour.

Now technically a direct comparison would be to a single subway line, not the entire system. BUT we also need to compare it with the maximum capacity, not the actual ridership, which blows the doors off the stupid tunnel. I’ve seen numbers for BART as high as 48,000 passengers per direction per hour.

Sure thing, parasite.

/s

… there will always be a segment of the population that will only act when incentivized

I’d argue that this is true of all the population but with the stipulation that “incentives” do not need to be monetary. I completely agree that capitalism is not human nature and feel that we’ve essentially brain-washed people to believe that money and material possessions are the reward when in fact it’s all the other things in life that actually matter. I believe that this thinking, which had lots of good reasons for existing during times of scarcity and paucity of resources, can be undone eventually. I think in a post-scarcity world (I’d argue we’re there) where it is normal for people to live fulfilled lives in significant comfort free from financial and work stress those few people who can’t shake the need to competitively accumulate will be rare indeed.

Until then we have a huge problem: we have too much highly efficient prosperity for capitalist models to make any sense at all.

Yes, I’m thinking of fully automated luxury communism.

And thank you for your thoughtful comment. I enjoyed reading and thinking about your perspective.

Well yeah, taxes. But…

The US government’s priorities simply lie elsewhere.

No, the American people’s priorities. And until that changes, we’re dead in the water

Ah, I see. You really just want to hear yourself talk and are too intellectually lazy to engage with anyone else’s ideas.

So capitalism is “ok”… sometimes?

If investments in stocks is “just as much capitalist behavior” then what makes investments in real estate somehow worse? Because you could literally be investing in companies that, as an example, seek to privatize access to water or healthcare or other things I would consider basic human rights just as much as housing. At a minimum all companies exploit the labor of their workers in parasitic ways.

“feels a little less negative on the working class” is highly subjective. I can personally see no difference between owning real estate and renting it out vs investing in companies that exploit people in other ways. Many capitalist activities that you could invest in have extremely far-reaching and long-term adverse effects, some very direct, such as use of fossil fuels.

So quite literally it feels like many complain about landlords as a kind of bogey man while the chemical plant down the road is giving their kids brain damage and another is denying them basic health care.

In a circular or planned economy, those aren’t really significant measures,

Ok, sure - you just said “different” and did not specify.

As mentioned in the last reply, the Palace of Knossos, as well as the Petra were marvels of craftsmanship and engineering, staggering investments,

That involved massive exploitation and slave labor. And let’s not forget significant taxation, looting, etc.

You comparing them with modern construction methods necessitated by capitalism

I’m comparing them because I’m making the point that profit, price pressures and inflation obviously arise when private entities make huge capital investments.

So now that you’ve actually specified “different” as meaning non-capitalist systems, it leads me to wonder if you thought King Minos sought out volunteers… or did he pay everyone fairly? Are you really using “public” works built under autocratic rule as positive examples we can replicate?

First up, so it’s clear, I actually agree with you. But I also don’t think this is an easy thing.

If you’re aware of public and social housing then why are you asking how community ownership and management works?

Because there is a hiccup in your logic as far as I can discern it.

On the one hand you say: “of course all rental housing should be publicly owned.”

And on the other, “I’m not certain that all housing should be public”

So how does that work?

1. How does the housing become public? That’s trillions of dollars worth of property. I actually got the figure of US$7 quadrillion but I don’t believe it. What’s more, 70% of the 19.3 million rental properties in the US are owned by individual investors, meaning you’d have to either confiscate or buy from millions of individuals. I mean, it wouldn’t make sense to just build all this housing if it’s already there. Maybe a combination? But where on earth does that money come from? And how do you convince people invested in a $1.4 trillion market to give up that income?
2. So let’s say somehow #1 happens over some period of time. How then do you meet ongoing demand? I get what your saying - there are examples of this working (for some values of “work”) on a small scale but over the entire rental market?
3. If the public via governments has paid for all this housing at current prices, how do we then ensure rents are low? Over time yes, we can forgo all but the bare minimum rent increases to match inflation, but initially we have to foot the bill somehow. Because presumably that money has to be borrowed and we have to pay interest on it on top of ongoing maintenance, etc - there are real costs involved.

Indeed. And it’s been fascinating to see the logical inconsistency of “landlords bad but capitalism good”.

So tl;dr investment can be for good or can be for ill. I’d argue any investment ends up prioritizing profit over any ethical concerns no matter what they say. As you say, in essence: Profit motive does that. Venture capital demands it.

The abhorrent behavior is buying multiple houses and charging rent that is high enough to not just cover mortgage and maintenance but also turn a large profit, enough to where you can live entirely off of it at the expense of your tenants.

I would certainly agree with that. But those actions also perfectly describe any capitalist behavior. And it’s that inconsistency in views that I’ve been poking at here. Some want to excuse other capital-focused actions as acceptable but then condemn real estate as though somehow that’s different. To me both are essentially exploitative.