Ava

Sure, but the argument isn't "should we ban work that is based on the study of past cultural creation" it's "we should prevent computational/corporate exploitation of past cultural creation in order to protect the interests of humans."

Well, for starters, "college" uses a soft g sound.

I hate Fox News. I think they are a joke masquerading as news and mostly serve to fuel misinformation, fear, and hate. I have no doubt that a significant number of their staff members are incredibly racist, overtly and covertly. I don't know enough about Kilmeade to know for sure where he sits there, but I definitely think being a Fox host is already a pretty big red flag on the "are you a racist" test.

But... I have to be honest on this one, I hear him say "college."

Back pocket trick?

Thank you for sharing your experience, it's a fascinating anecdote.

I'm not sure what EXACTLY you'd be looking for from a search feature as I'm mostly a light user myself, but there's a search option which will search the contents of all your notes. I can't tell you how robust it is, but it does have exclusion (desiredTerm -excludeTerm) search at least, and there's standard Find/Replace functionality once you're in the specific note.

numerous bear sightings led to a plea for people not to use 911 to report non-emergency bear sightings.

Not to make light of the situation, but I really must insist that these be re-categorized into "casual" and "competitive" bear sightings.

So... it pays in exposure?

I think you'll find loads of young people without time for art, too.

I'm not the person who you're discussing things with already, but to chime in in case it's useful.

It’s quite clear to me that these types of “men” just want women to be slaves or corpses.

When I read this, it reads to me as "these types of so-called men" or "these types of self-defined 'true men'" which may or may not be your intention.

I think there's a divide here on the perception of your phrasing, perhaps?

The claim in this article seems to me to be flawed. The core claim seems to be that the landlord cannot pass on the costs to the tenant because the market is at capacity. But what this really means is, the tax WILL be passed through to the tenants until maximum exploitation of the tenants (as a resource) has been reached. Which would include the UBI safety net as well, since the system demands (intentionally) maximum exploitation of this limited resource, no?

At this point, the landlord can continue to reduce their OWN share of the profits, sure. But the LVT will continue to increase over time, so eventually the landlord is priced out of the area, the building closes, and all tenants are evicted. MAYBE this particular landlord has enough capital to re-invest into the land that it may again become profitable with additional investment, but EVENTUALLY this will not be the case, and the property must be sold. This centralizes all land assets over time into the control of whichever conglomerate has enough resources to maximally develop the area.

And what of the tenants? Rent prices are deemed to have been at their maximum for the region. Tenants in this case are displaced, at least for the amount of time that redevelopment will take. And, because the value of a particular parcel of land seems likely to be similar to a neighboring one of identical size, this increase is likely to affect ALL housing providers in a particular area with similar circumstances, since we have to assume that development doesn't happen in massively disproportionate jumps.

It doesn't seem clear to me at all why landlords wouldn't be able to pass the value on to tenants.