Ava

They died doing what they loved. Placing their very life into the hands of techbro con artists.

The first word you submitted in this comment chain is literally "pronouns" and the topic of conversation is your stated choice of "it/its" pronouns and implication that you use them when not engaging with individuals, like on this board.

Thank you for the kind words. Not updating is not a decision we have taken lightly. I can’t speak to the specifics because I’m not tech enough to fully understand them, but I believe a major part of the reason for not updating has to do with that migration off Lemmy - that it changes the way data is stored and organized and because of such the migration process (moving comments, threads, etc. to sublinks) would need to be entirely redesigned.
https://beehaw.org/comment/3796083

The instance admins have indicated in the post linked above and in several others that there isn't really any plan to upgrade to the newer Lemmy version given the desire to move to Sublinks.

Edit: There's some more discussion about it in this thread posted earlier today. https://beehaw.org/post/15453474

Not even, it's just a case of "this role was one of many eliminated as part of a larger cost-cutting measure affecting 200 employees."

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."

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.

So... it pays in exposure?

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

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.