In most cases yes. However in the cases of fines poor people are more penalized than wealthy, so there should be some proportional consideration there.
karlhungus
joined 1 year ago
this is normal enshittification, we just move on to the next shit.
I'm very lazy so I'd probably start by looking at filters on those sites, if i really wanted to tackle this with programming, i'd:
see if there's an api, or rss feed for these sites, if so i'd pull that down with a cron job and do filtering locally with probably regex.
if not i'd scrape the html and pull out the relevant links with whatever the latest html parser is for the language i use (i.e. it used to be beautiful soup for python, but there's i think a new better one).
but as i said i'm rather lazy, and haven't been on the prowl for jobs for some time.
I was thinking of amazon.com and kind of happy about it... now i'm sad
In my experience only kinda, and by convention (up is on), and three-way switches break this (indicator becomes the light itself).
besides the example i gave actually harming people, and them not being in prison, to go from "people who don't help society" to murder is kind of a stretch isn't it?
you realize it's possible to neither help nor harm society.
i am canadian, are we limited to examples only of canadian's who harm societies, C suite of loblaws isn't in jail are they?
I know halifax has some shit history that i didn't learn in school -- i think i mostly learned about black history from american sources, and my own reading.
Finally some good news! Although I'm sort of surprised this didn't exist already
I've heard 4% rule, but for myself I use an investment firm that does monte carlo projections, with ages, spending rates, and current assets to give you a rough idea of likelihood of assets lasting till death.
Ive also played with a few of the retirement calculators made by the FIRE crowd i.e. https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/beyond-4-rule-how-much-can-you-spend-retirement
- You are free to not spend money there
- If you took this logic and turned it around, i could see an argument saying the moment you stop helping society why should we let you exist
I agree that in the best interests of having a pleasant place to live, or elected officials should force them to sell at not so great a profit. I feel like "they shouldn't be allowed to exist" is a poor way to put it.
I think what's being said is: if housing prices lower, you are going to ruin some people's retirement plan -- at least some of those people will have worked hard their entire life to purchase and pay off that house. There's been some incentive to save in this way as well (first time home buyer plan, tax deductions for more ecologically sound houses, that kind of thing).
I suspect he's probably right, that letting house prices drop would over all make things worse in Canada. My goto solution would be to subsidize housing by increasing taxes on corporations and people/corporations that own more than one house. but i'm not any kind of expert