Dremor

Nor is it any reason to assume it will not.

That’s a fundamental part of capitalism, that the one that owns the capital also get to choose where to invest it. It is their money.
Now you can get some that will invest in project that benefits the communitiy, like building new homes, schools. You can also get greedy asholes that only invest for their own benefits, buy new jets, etc.

Now calling all landlords greedy pigs like some does in this topic will only benefits the later, by discouraging those who works toward nobler goals to advertise them, which doesn’t help those initiatives to reach their target audience.

Like I told on other replies, I do own a house, which I rent to an elderly couple, so I’m on the landlord “side”. It was my grandma house, which I inherited when she died. I renovated it, rented it, had to do costly repair after the first tenant because he trashed the place, all that at a rather low rent for the area. To this day I didn’t touch a cent from the rent other than for repairs, and reduced the rent again due to water damages in a room (coming from the neighbor which refuses to do the repairs as it do not affects him).

So, tell me, AITA?

In an ideal world, everyone would be kind enough to do the repairs in time. And give back the house in the same (if not better) shape than it was when you started renting it. But we are not in such world, and people, tenants as well as landlords, will think first about their own benefits before those of others they may never know.

I’d be happy to not ask a rent if my tenant would repair and improve the house with their own money. But who would want to upgrade or repair with his hard earned money a house they may move from some years later?
That’s kinda the main problem. The tenant do not have much insentive to maintain the house in good shape, other than for it to be good enough to live in. Once they want to move, they will just expect any repairs or improvement to be done by the next tenant.
But if the house is in bad shape (it happened to me after my first tenant who basically wrecked my grandma old house), no tenant would want to live there knowing they will have to pay a lot of money upfront to get an acceptable place to live into.

That why it is logical for the owner/landlord to be the one to take care of all that.
They are the ones who have the most insentives at keeping the place in good shape and improve it.
And to do that, they need to earn enough money, which cannot be done alone by working himself, thus what tenant pays: a participation for future repairs and improvements, in the form of a rent.

Now you’ll always find greedy cunts amongs landlords, that considers the rent as their own pocket money. There are way to limit that kind of behaviour (rent limits, among others).

Add I didn’t even talk about how to actually build houses. Where would you find that money? The tenant obviously doesn’t have enough money, and so will the landowner without rent.

In an ideal world, it would work, if the tenant has enough money ahead to do said repairs. If not, what will you do ? Ask the owner? He doesn’t have any money anymore, other than his own salary, which may also not be enough to pay for said repairs.

Rent isn’t just money lost, it is money that can be put asside in order to be used in the future to do those repairs.
How much money will be kept for that purpose depends on the landlord, which can be either a greedy cunt, a good guy, or anything in between), but that’s another topic.

Another use for rent money is to build new homes. Building new things costs money, be it for the material used or the workers involved, and you can’t just ask them to work for free.

I agree for the human right, but who will pay for the house repairs? With what money ?

A good landlord do add value.

They do repairs on time (which can be quite costly), takes care of most HOA stuff (and fees), pay quite a lot of taxes (depending on where you live, of course).

Personally I inherited part of my grandmother home (the other part being owned by my father). When she died, I redid most of the isolation, electrical and paints, costing me 75k, and had to do paint again (10k) after the first tenant (they ruined it, it went from white to dark yellow due to how much they smoked).
We had some water damage, which was caused by the town (they refused to pay for the damages, invoking a impossible to follow law), and another one (caused by the neighbor, which refuses to do the repairs), which is still pending (we reduced the rent due to that).
Add to that the taxes, which basically reduce our “earning” by 40% where I live, 6 years after my grandmother passing I just started to see any income from the property.

So yeah, there are bastards amongs us, but abput as much as in any group of people. That’s not homeowning that make the bastard, they’d be bastard, home or not.

Aurora Linux (immutable KDE with auto update) on the Desktop, Fedora KDE on the laptop.

Made my father switch to Linux about a year ago, so far he loves it. He has the tech knowledge of an oyster, but so far it worked.

Sure I had some convincing to do at first, but once he realized KDE is basically Windows well done without pesky ads, he was sold.

I still have to do some work from time to time (usually through Rustdesk), but globally it works well.

I have to admit my way of doing this was a bit underhanded (steps bellow), but it worked.

1. Move his docs outside of the computer to a NAS. Like that no risk of loosing files. He believed for a long time files were bound to the OS (despire using OpenOffice and Libreoffice for decades), so he through that .odt made on Windows wouldn’t be compatible with LibreOffice on Linux.
2. Once W10 support had ended, didn’t told him about the extension (I’m a sneaky bastard), and offered to dual boot Linux.
3. Fumble the dualboot (oops, my bad, guess you have to use Linux for the time being, I don’t have enough time to reinstall Windows 10). Who knows, maybe intentionally 😆
4. Let him marinate about two weeks, forcing him to try Linux, helping him through Rustdesk when needed
5. When I came back, he asked me if I could install Linux on his laptop. This time I did not fumble the dual boot, but still let Linux be the default boot option

Fast forward almost a year, he didn’t boot Windows for at least 6 months, and is pretty happy how snappy Linux is (despite how weak is computer is, he has an Athlon 3000G, paid like fifty bucks years ago, new, with 4GB of RAM, recently upgraded to 8GB with old stock I had around).

May take a little while because I got some deadlines coming up soon, but I’ll make sure to reply here whenever it is ready. It’ll also be a good way for me to improve my English 😆.

I reread the thread, my apologizes, you are right on that, I just forgot my first comment 😅.

The “alien being a person” argument is more an ironic one, you can ignore that. Any intelligent being, alien or not, is a person.

On the other hand, I could give you a corpus of 10 texts, part of them written by hand by your truly, only using a non-ai writing help to avoid obvious gramatical mistakes (English is not my native language), imitating corpo speech, and the anothers generated by my local AI (Mistral:7B). Would you accept to try ?

To be arguing in bad faith would require me to have made an argument, which I did not.
Other than pointing out the lack of proof of your (badly) hidden argument, I never pretended it to be either LLM speech or human corpo speech. Because there are no proof of either being objectively more likely than the other.

But you did, using a loaded question, which is written in such way to deny the possibility for it to be human corpo speech, which existed way earlier than LLMs.

You asked why you were getting downvoted, I anwered with the definition of why. With a link to the definition for you to read so you may improve your “question”.

Depending on the definition of “a person”, an alien could be one. What would be your definition of a person ?

I was just pointing out your earlier answer is a loaded question, by definition.

AI learned from the best worst of us.

Do you actually think it’s okay that they had a bot make a press release this hamfisted?

You are not “saying it sounds like it is written by AI”, you are affirming it is written by an AI. Big difference.
You affirmation being formated as a question doesn’t change anything, it is a Loaded Question, which tends to be frowned upon.

Bold claim, corroborated with no proof.

Sure it looks like AI speech patterns, but they are trained on corporate speech, so hard to differentiate an LLM from a corporate spokesperson.

Which comes back to my main argument: both have failed, so either both are bad, or we have a people problem instead of a system problem.

• 1921-1922 (Povolzhye, or Volga famine), 5-10 millions dreath
• 1932-1933 (Holodomor), 3.5 to 7 millions death in Ukraine alone
• 1930-1933 (Asharshylyk), 1.5 million deaths (seem small, but that was 40% of then Kazakhstan population)
• 1932-1933 (at the same time than the Holodomor, but in Russia) : 1 to 2 millions deaths
• 1946-1947: 1 to 1.5 millions deaths

And that’s only those who were big enough to be impossible to hide completely.

All of them have something in common: the central government minimised them, and tried to hide them. Some weren’t even acknowledged until after the USSR fall. All of them are a combination of bad luck (war, drought) combined with hasty decisions which made what could have been a hard year a generational disaster.

Both having a form of free market doesn’t make it suddenly good for one side and bad for the other.

Some sort of free market is good, so new idea can brew, some of them being one day attempted, other won’t because it ends up either not getting traction, or would very obviously fail after some research.

Problem is with too much planning is that it doesn’t give as much place for innovation, as well as put too much weight on a single point of failure. That played a good part in the USSR famines, like the holodomor, which was then further aggravated by their unwillingness to admit they fucked up, blaming it on other factors. But if they had learned from their mistakes, it would have improved, but unfortunately those very same error were repeated multiple time (see the multiple famines the USSR faced while strangely their western counterparts did not).

And I’ll pass on the other similar failures (Chernobyl, among other), that follow the very same pattern.

Of course, the USSR had some very clear wins, like the first part of the race to space, and others.

The USSR could have been a success if their leader weren’t selfish idiots, which os a shame since I’d rather live in a good cummunism regime than a good capitalism regime.

I always worked toward such ideals, I contributed to some open-source project (Gnome, KDE, mostly translation, bug report, but also some packaging for OpenSUSE and Fedora.

I’m a bit tired of those who blindly follow ideologies without having the intellectual honesty to recognize where said ideology fucked up and where it was great. Do I have to be called a social-traitor for every reflection on communism or socialism? I doubt Marx would be happy to see those he tried to enlighten sheepishly follow whoever yell the loudest… Even if they yell parta of what he tried to teach them.

That was part of my philosophy class, the book is probably still at my father house.

Already done, lot a good ideas, some ideas I don’t agree with, but an enlightening read nonetheless.

The part I disagree the most about are free competition.

Communism by itself isn’t bad, nor is capitalism, but both assume that their proponents are immune to greed, and that their opponent are full of it.

There are good things in both, bad things in both. The problem is to find people that are truly altruistic, and that have the moral fortitude to stay altruistic.

Edit: y’all can downvote all you want, I’ll stand by my opinion unless someone has the honesty to argue on that.