True equality!

At some point, he’ll piss off enough people that the world at large will just look the other way when it happens.

The term is connected to misogyny. If someone just wants to give up dating and that’s the end of it, there’s no reason for anyone to be ticked off by that idea. It’s the doomer attitude surrounding it and the effects of it that cause problems. You used the term ‘black pill’, which has specific connotations - it’s not simply choosing to give up dating.

The term black pill, first popularized in the 2010s on the incel blog Omega Virgin Revolt, refers to accepting the futility of fighting against a feminist system. Blackpilled incels are encouraged to either commit suicide or “go ER”/be a “hERo,” referencing Elliot Rodger’s 2014 Isla Vista murder spree that has been called an act of misogynistic terrorism.

(Source: Britannica)

https://12ft.io/ works great to bypass stupid bullshit like that, as well.

The key point you’re missing, I think, is that the tax would increase exponentially for each additional house owned. The first one could be, say, a 0.5% tax increase, and it could go up from there.

If you’re in a position where paying 0.5% extra tax on your hunting cabin split 5 ways will bankrupt you, then I’d argue that it isn’t how you’re supposed to spend your money. That’s “Skip eating out once a year” territory.

I’ve said this before (and caught flak for it) but I think the solution to this is to apply a heavy additional tax to vacant homes (as defined as any home that isn’t occupied by a permanent resident for more than 6 months a year), and increase the tax exponentially for each residence beyond the first owned by the same company or individual.

At some point, you make it so expensive to keep unoccupied properties that they’re better off letting people live there for free than continuing to let them go unoccupied. Use all of the proceeds from this tax to assist homeless people or build new dense housing developments.

“But Kobold, what about soandso with their summer home?” If you can afford a second home, you can afford to pay a bit more tax on it to benefit the public good.

“But Kobold, a lot of those homes that are vacant are run-down, or are in places nobody actually wants to live!” Doesn’t matter. If they’re vacant, tax them. Use the money to build dense housing in the places where people do want to live. If the place is too run-down to be occupied, the owner can tear it down and do something else with it.

At the low, low price of €5 per character? Zero chance of that happening.

Both Window and Face link to this page.

Am I missing something here? The links seem to have no relevance to the word they’re linked from; if that’s the intent, what’s even the point of making them linked from words in Ulysses? Further, out of the ~20 links you have here, there’s already a duplicate link.

So, Primer, then? Where you can’t return to a point in time before the time machine was constructed?

For example, Penny Dreadful is a fun fan-organized Magic the Gathering constructed format, played exclusively on MtG Online, wherein legality is determined by cards that were worth $0.02 or less during the previous 3-month ‘season’, making decks inherently very affordable.

It has a neat self-regulating effect since enough people play the format that if a card is particularly strong in a given season, the demand created by the format will typically drive the price up above $0.02, and cause it to be illegal in the next season.

It seems like this would create a format with only very bad cards, but card prices are a bit wild in MtGO, such that there’s actually over 14,000 legal cards currently including many rare and mythic rarity cards.

On the morality point, I’d argue that we should spend the money to rescue any person if we have the money/means, and it can feasibly happen without excessive risk to other lives, otherwise we’re assigning monetary value to human lives.

Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.

This new series of Battlebots sounds pretty entertaining.

For a game built around limited formats (like drafting or sealed deck play), it makes sense / is a necessity for the format to work. It definitely sucks for constructed formats, though.

My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man?

Depends where the money is coming from. Military budget? Absolutely. Being taken from social services and whatnot? No. The amount of money that would cost could save so many more lives if it was used for things here. Choosing to spend it on saving an astronaut rather than on, for example, feeding homeless people and distributing medication and disaster relief is like a version of the trolley problem where the trolley is already heading for the 1 person, but you have the option of switching it to the other track to kill more people if you want to. I’d have a really hard time calling that moral by any metric.

Also some absolutely great dialog / voice acting.

“You are WOEFULLY deficient in the ways of etiquette, BUT… you have a point.”

Hopefully it’ll act as a spoiler against the republican candidate, opening the door for a progressive party to also form without causing a far-right candidate to get elected.

Yeah, they’ve already placed tons of bets against themselves; own-goals are just lining their pockets.

The city should just put forth a new plan that involves taking those specific homeowners’ land via eminent domain, and using it to install new parking lots or roadways or whatever will fit to accommodate the new requirements.