Great point!

Crazy, they’re basically saying, ‘we know this is impossible so just do your best, as long as you remit everything you collect then it doesn’t really matter what/how you collect’.

This is very unfair to the small business because inevitably there will be some customers who will be pissed off when the store doesn’t collect properly, and small business won’t even come close to doing it correctly.

Making temporary short term massive changes to taxation is a very dumb idea. Canada must be drinking uncle Sam’s koolaid to be acting this foolish.

I have always said that so long as McDonalds has a hot burger for a few bucks on every street corner, there will not be a revolution in the US.

Rather than starving to death, we have an obesity epidemic along with an opiate epidemic, which prevents the revolution from getting up off the couch.

Not trying to claim a conspiracy here, just the way things are.

It would cost thousands in labor to set up temporary tax rates based on alcohol content. Most systems have tax rates which apply to product categories, not alcohol content. Liquor store pos systems in the US, at least in my state, typically don’t even store the abv in the price book, which would make this taxation virtually impossible to comply with.

Are there any people in your family that are not obese that have chronic pain? If not then I’ll bet it’s closer to 100% due to obesity.

You only get one life to live… eat right and exercise, you can do it! I am half way to my target weight after 6 months of busting my ass and I feel a million times better.

This indeed would probably do the trick

So discussion of jury nullification is ok as a general topic. If someone mentions JN in the context of a crime that has not yet been committed then that’s not ok. If the crime has already been committed then that’s ok. If the crime is not violent in nature then we can discuss JN, and if we are just having a general conversation about JN that’s ok too.

Specifically, the concern is that talking about JN in the context of some hypothetical violent crime that has not yet been committed could be interpreted as advocating for violence.

This sounds pretty stupid so far, but my question is then, why wrap the ToS around specifically jury nullification? Why not just reiterate the ‘no advocating for violence’ policy.

If someone is advocating for violence, then adding on some point about jury nullification is irrelevant, they are already breaking the rule.

Someone had their Chomsky-o’s for breakfast this morning.

Hippie 1: Right now we’re proving we don’t need corporations. We don’t need money. This can become a commune where everyone just helps each other.

Hippie 2: Yeah, we’ll have one guy who like, who like, makes bread. A-and one guy who like, l-looks out for other people’s safety.

Kyle: You mean like a baker and a cop?

Hippie 1: No no, can’t you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?

Kyle: Yeah, it’s called a town.

Hippie 1: You kids just haven’t been to college yet. But just you wait, this thing is about to get HUGE.

Rent for single family properties is higher than the mortgage of that same property. In theory. So ideally no single family property should be rented as its purely a parasite relationship. Again, in theory.

The problem with this theory is that it’s wrong across the board.

Take a look at houses on realtor dot com or the like… they show estimated mortgage and also estimated rental value. Single family homes typically rent for far less than a new mortgage on the same property, partly because housing prices are so inflated and partly because as you pointed out, someone who got a mortgage on a property 10 years ago who is renting it out now may be renting it out based on the cost of ownership 10 years ago.

Secondly, your conclusion doesn’t follow even if your premise was correct.

Let’s pretend sfh rental prices were higher than the cost of a new mortgage on the same property. How would that then translate to ‘people who can only afford to rent shouldn’t be allowed the dignity of living in a sfh and instead should have no other option but to live in a shared housing environment… how does that follow? How could you possibly think the answer is an increased limitation on what people can rent?

The real solution is getting rid of corporate ownership of more than say maybe 20 properties at a time.

I would certainly prefer having hundreds of thousands of small time landlords with 5 or 10 properties, as opposed to dozens of billionaire corporation who each own tens of thousands of properties… be they sfh or condos or whatever is irrelevant.

There are people who do want to rent, and people whoneed to rent, but that should happen in priperly dense apartment building designed specifically for that.

Who are you to say what people should or shouldn’t rent. Should all renters be piled on top of each other in over packed buildings with 600 square feet to themselves? Why can’t I rent a 2000 square foot town home for my family so that they are safe while I save up to buy my own home?

And say I rent a townhome for 10 years, then buy my own townhome, then 10 years later I rent it out to someone else while I buy something bigger? What’s wrong with that.

I think what we all have a problem with is housing affordability and a lack of systematic focus by the government on eliminating poverty.

The issue isn’t some small time landlord with 5 condos, it’s the investment groups with 5000 condos which artificially juice the rents year after year.

It’s insulting to say that all of the poor people who cannot afford to buy a home should have to live in densely packed buildings.

Notepad ++ is invaluable for writing code, I’ve used it for a long while now.

Also great is paint dot net which is a super advanced paint application that is borderline as good as photo shop, particularly when you add on all the community-created functionality.

Revo uninstaller is the first thing I put on a new machine before I delete all the bloatware that comes with a fresh install of windows. You would be surprised what is left over when you only use the built in ‘remove a program’ process.

Lastly, browser based but free and excellent, is sketch up, which is an architectural rendering application great for designing restaurants and retail spaces. A little bit of a learning curve but very smooth and functional once you get the hang of it.

Edit - VLC goes without saying right?

Unless you use Mac or windows

To quote something I made up and say all the time, “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose.”

This was super funny, this person has a great career ahead of her. Very Tim and Eric style obscure indie comedy, I loved it.

Getting high and playing video games?

This just in, something that only exists as a sci-fi trope which has never been demonstrated to be even remotely possible is not on the verge of spontaneously emerging from something that is completely unrelated and comparatively unremarkable.

Because your example sentence uses the word ‘went’ rather than ‘was’, you need a comma because those are two separate I dependent clauses.

You and Dave were together and then Dave leaves you and goes driving by himself… me and Dave, then Dave went.

If you used ‘was’ then those would not be independent clauses and therefore a comma would not be used. It was me and Dave and Dave was driving.

Edit: also, why the downvote, we are having a conversation here ??

I don’t believe that’s accurate.

There are only two things in the list, pig & whistle.

They want more space between pig and &.

They also want more space between & and whistle.

If we were listing three areas where they want additional space we would need at least one comma, and I would argue for the Oxford comma as well, however we are only listing two areas where we want more space and so no comma is needed.

Sure it’s nearly unreadable, but I think the punctuation is correct.

They refer to the same and twice.