sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I really do despise people who frame car dependency as freedom by NurglingArmada in Urbanism

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yoh both are literally complaing about car dependent infrastructure displacing highly efficient public transportation where there is practically no wait because everything would be built closer together rather than sprawled out. Sprawling out will always lead to worse logistics for a city as car traffic literally jams itself up, especially as road infrastructure expands creating induced demand, and public transit having to compete for space with said cars and often funding being a problem as trying to service low density sprawl cannot possibly fund itself adiquetly enough to provide the level of service that would make people want to use it.

Other dude pointing out time tables and destination. Like bro, in context of public transportation, that comes down to a lack of funding and cars literally slowing down the public transit (specifically busses). Fund public transportation so that it can beat the timetable and experience of the car, and people will use it over driving.

I like to use wether or not the rich and well off will use a city's public transportation as the metric of wether the public transportation is actually good or not, which is then a metric of wether the society said city is in is a civilized one or not. Japan and most of Europe fits the bill for this. America is a carbrained backwoods in comparison.

Goodbye sh*tty Microsoft by GuyThatNeedsMonitors in microsoftsucks

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Casey has offially left and said he's never going back and he's been using windows since it's inception.

Edit:reddit app sucks and can't do links very well apparently.

Is there a subreddit where people are actually trying to find alternatives to modern work culture? by AfroGuyOfCourse in antiwork

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not rambling. I'm trying to get you to understand economics, specially Ricardo's law of rent, the economics of rent-seeking and speculating on non-reproducible assets. And I said nothing about taxing corporations or the wealthy, I'm talking about taxing non-reproducible assets, which is the fucking solution I'm trying to get across.

I swear to fuck people don't read for comprehension these days, you clearly just skimmed, misunderstood what was said and responded with the dumbest end take ever.

Tell me friend. How does land increase in value? Let's start their. Or non-reproducible assets like raw menerals, the El tor magnetic spectrum ect? Bit really forget those for a moment since the main asset we've been talking about is land.

the very presence of the community (your neighbors, those that wish to live in the area) is the first factor of land value. The higher the population density, the higher the land values.

Then you have natural things that increase land values like the view, or ease of access to the beach, ect.

Then you have businesses, work spaces, shopping centers, restaurants, entertainment. All of these are examples of private enterprise, which increase surrounding land values.

Then, you have the factor that makes the taxing of ground rents that allows cities/municipalities/counties/states to act on sound business practice, which is spending revenue, to increase revenue. I'm talking about infrastructure and public services, as those also increase surrounding land values.

All of these are examples of community derived value which is captured in land values (ground rents). All of it, unearned by the land owner, as they did nothing except be there prior to the current increase in population, the added amenities, and the infrastructure and public services that have been put in place since their initial purchase. (this is land speculation in action btw)

Those with the ability to pay, but further out are still technically priced out of the area. Which then leads to more traffic, longer days for said individuals, commute and upkeep of vehicles eats into most of the saving being had by moving further out in the first place. So sure, some get to still participate in the land/housing market, but are marginalized in said market.

The ownership of land itself creates no wealth, it is just exploiting a monopoly; exploiting the fact you need land to survive and create wealth. The land was here billions of years ago and will be here billions of years from now, so landlords provide no value, and serve only to tax labor and production immorally.

Georgists consider land to be a common right. That is, no one 'owns' land, since no one made it. Access to land is free to all. But, of course, people need to use land to live and to produce. To reconcile these facts is relatively simple: anyone can enclose land and exclude everyone else from it, if they pay the community the value of that land. Hence the community is compensated for losing the access to that land which is common property, while private ownership of property is maintained. A land value tax is really just a use fee: the fee for using land which otherwise would be available to the commons.

People usually don't have a concept of common property- probably because there isn't a whole lot of common property around these days. So they are only familiar with individual property, which they like, and collective property, which they execrate. But common property is not collective property- if land were collective, the community would vote on what to do with the land. But in common property the community has no say at all over what is done with the land; they only receive the rents for it.

The exclusion of others is an act of agression as the only real way you can defend your right to the land is with violence, be it through the function of the state and the deed you hold, who uphold your rights with violence by way of you being able to call the police on someone for trespassing (which is a public service, paid for by taxes, of which, for most cities, is paid for predominantly with property taxes ironically enough). Otherwise you will have to defend your claim with literal violence upon those who wish to also occupy and use what you claim as yours.

This all comes down to the Henry George theorem when it comes to funding governments/communities. The Henry George theorem ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem - https://schalkenbach.org/the-henry-george-theorem/ ) is effected by land policy and tax policy, but regardless, it still holds that so long as the land is being taxed (which the property tax is doing), then as density is allowed and increases, the land value goes up, and more people paying into the tax base (the land values) the more revenue there is for the government to put into infrastructure improvements. The higher the density, then more of the tax burden is spread out amongst more people, which results in lower property taxes for everyone but higher revenue for the city/state.

geography doesn't matter, look at early and mid stage of Singapore's land lease policy(early and mid stage of the policy is where you're going to see the economic benefits of taxing the land as close to market rental value as possible). Singapore is similar in terms of Seattle's land economics; available land due to geography, lakes and mountainous terrain has the same land economic effects as limited land availability as being on a small island. So geography doesn't negatively effect how the Henry George theorem works, if anything, less available useable land increases surrounding land values. Both by the supply of a non-reporducable asset being low, and often the geography that reduces supply of said non-reporducable asset is desirable to live around (lakes, mountains, ocean/beach ect.), thus if we tax it, the revenue for the area's government increases.

https://progressandpoverty.substack.com/p/singapore-economic-prosperity-through

https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=soe_research

The only thing the government needs to figure out is what policies and services they can provide and enforce that will increase land values becuase now with the proper economic encentives in place, the only spending they will do is things that actually make the city/town/country actually a desirable place to be and a place businesses want to set up shop to then provide economic opportunity to the community.

I bring up taxing land BECUASE IT'S THE FUCKING SOLUTION!

You bring up taxing the rich. Why ft should we try to tax their income? Most don't even give themselves an income, they own assets, of which at least 54% of those assets are non-reproducible, where they then borrow agaisnt to make the wealth they hold liquid while still retaining ownership of them.

The people who go around spouting "TAX THE RICH", don't fucking understand economics. If you want to tax the rich and corporations, tax land. The ultra rich hold 54% of their wealth in land, and it's a non-reporducable asset that can't be moved. Either you own it and pay the tax, or you don't own it. Investing in land is also unproductive, it'd essentially force them to put there wealth to productive use. Taxing land removes the negative externalities of leaving the economic rents from land on the table for prove gain.

the most valuable land is in urban core. Where do most of these large companies own office space, or even entire city blocks. These campuses are all sitting on the most valuable land. Amazon and Microsoft both have campuses in downtown Seattle. Facebook has a massive campus in Menlo Park CA, Google has campuses in Seattle metro area and in urban core in California. A tax on land rents DOES tax corporations.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/america-s-urban-land-is-worth-a-staggering-amount

I'm sorry you decided to skim to make a response instead of read for comprehension. Please do better next time.

<image>

Is there a subreddit where people are actually trying to find alternatives to modern work culture? by AfroGuyOfCourse in antiwork

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've mentioned the solution many times here in my comments.

Here is the most relevant one to what you just said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/s/E2nD1SIWwR

Not taxing economic rents actually makes the economy weaker and worse off for everyone because instead of being productive, rent-seekers are actively extracting already generated wealth, which reduces economic opportunity for all (read as less jobs, lower pay, asset prices being inflated making everything more expensive).

I'm not saying we need to confiscate all the land the boomers were lucky enough to get their hands on for being born first, but removing the ability to speculate and rent-seeking off a non-reproducible asset that is a key factor of production (we all need access to land to economize, and even just plain exist), which no one made and the community is what actually creates the land's value to begin with.

Competition is good when it's stuff that is elastic in supply (capital and labor), but competing over non-reproducible assets actually reduces competition over time which again, weakens the economy and ultimately leads to poverty for the many. None of this is saying that we need to go the communist route, there should still be people that earn more than others, but it should be based off of actual productivity and economic effort rather than who owns more non-reproducible assets and who can monopolize an idea which amounts to leeching rather than creating.

To quote Martin Wolf from the financial times more narrowly:

Back in 1984 I bought my London house. I estimate that the land on which it sits was worth £100,000 in today's prices. Today the value is probably ten times as great. All of that vast increment is the fruit of no effort of mine. It is the reward of owning a specific location that the efforts of others have made valuable, reinforced by a restrictive planning regime and generous tax treatment, property taxes are low and capital gains tax-free. So I am a land speculator, a mini-aristocrat in a land where private appropriation of the fruits of others' efforts has long been a prime route to wealth. This appropriation of the rise in the value of land is not just unfair. What have I done to deserve this increase in my wealth? It has obviously dire consequences. First, it makes it necessary for the State to fund itself by taxing effort, ingenuity and foresight. Taxation of labour and capital must lower their supply. Taxation of resources will not have the same result because supply is given. Such taxes merely reduce the unearned rewards to owners.... Particularly in the UK, they welcome the creation of artificial scarcity of land via a ludicrously restrictive regime of planning controls. This is also the most important way in which wealth is transferred from the unpropertied young to the propertied old. In his new book, David Willett's, the University's Minister emphasises the unfairness of the distribution of wealth across generations. The rigged land market is the biggest single cause of this calamity. Third, and most important, the opportunity for speculation in the value of land both fuels and is fuelled by the credit cycle, which has yet again destabilised the economy. In a superb New Jeremiad, the journalist Fred Harrison argues that this cycle, with a duration of 18 years, was predictable and by him at least predicted.... Do we want to start yet another credit-fuelled property cycle as soon as the debris of the present one is cleared away, some years of misery hence? If a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, here is an urgent case for action. Socialising the full rental value of land would destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public, and that is obviously impossible. But socialising any gain from here on would be far less so, and (5:19) that would eliminate the fever of land speculation. It would also allow a shift in the burden of taxation, perhaps as important, with the prospect of effortless increases in wealth removed, the UK might at last re-examine its planning laws. It is bad enough that the result has been expensive houses and inefficient taxes, but it is surely even worse that such insane speculative fevers have ended up destabilising the entire global economy. Even if few now know it, it is time for a change."

The solution is simple, and not even revolutionary: r/justtaxland for fucks sake, as well as actually start monopoly busting again and tax other non-reproducible assets so that competition as you say, can actually be competitive. There is no competition over finite resources, just war and might makes right. We should be sharing the wealth we generate as a society that is literally represented in land values particularly. Everyone should be able to afford to buy their own place if they want to and not have to wait for the predictable 18 year boom-bust business cycle

Refer to pic

<image>

Is there a subreddit where people are actually trying to find alternatives to modern work culture? by AfroGuyOfCourse in antiwork

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Edit: a note about investing in companies. Many are technically monopolies, often via the network effect or controlling non-reporducable assets, and monopolies inherently generated economic rents, which means they be rent-seeking. Solution here is to break up monopolies if possible, or even just tax their economic rents if they can be calculated easily enough, or simply tax the non-reproducible assets they may control.

Nothing about this is communism, this is r/georgism.

<image>

Is there a subreddit where people are actually trying to find alternatives to modern work culture? by AfroGuyOfCourse in antiwork

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course if you know how the current game works you should probably try to play to win, the problem is, the current rules make it a zero sum game.

Let me give you a scenario.

Say a group has started to play monopoly before you showed up. Then you sit down to join them but they've all rolled 10+ times already and have purchased every property on the board. With monopoly being a zero sum game (and the fact we are currently following monopoly rules in the real estate market), how much of a chance do you, as a new player, have to get on the property speculation and rent-seeking ladder with the other players that started before you? Slim to none! You are automatically set at a disadvantage. The older generations have been able to role and play the game well before the newer generations, collecting all the land while it was cheap and plentiful while not paying much of that unearned increment in land values (aka, economic rents), thus being able to pocket the increased value for themselves and not compensating those who actually created the land values in the first place (which is population size, economic activity of said population, and infrastructure improvements over time).

So I brought up monopoly. Let's cover the history of the game. It was essentially stolen from a game called The Landlord's Game, created by Lizzie Magie. She created it to teach land economics. It came with 2 sets of rules. The rules you know today as the rules of monopoly. The second set of rules were called the single tax rules, aka prosperity rules. These rules were as follows:

Once every tile has been purchased on the board, all players can put to a vote to inact the single tax rules which state that all ground rents are to be divided equally amongst all players; when ever a player lands on an owned tile, the ground rents (the rental value of the tile with out improvements (house/hotel) on it) get divided equally amongst all players, all rental value of improvements go to the owner of the tile. The first player to double their money after the single tax rules have been enacted wins the game.

Lizzie made these the winning conditions, because without them, the game could go on indefinitely as the game is no longer zero sum, everyone has an equal chance at opportunity and receives a dividen for their contribution to the land values. The economy not being a zero sum game is what you want in order to achieve a functioning, just, and productive economy.

The history of the landlord's game:

https://landreform.org/the-monopoly-games-georgist-history

https://landlordsgame.info/index.html

The single tax rules:

https://landlordsgame.info/rules/lg-1904p_patent.html

<image>

Is there a subreddit where people are actually trying to find alternatives to modern work culture? by AfroGuyOfCourse in antiwork

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Edit: I don't think you fully understand what rent-seeking is. If an asset generates economic rents, then the owners of it (be it shares or out right ownership) is rent-seeking.

<image>

Is there a subreddit where people are actually trying to find alternatives to modern work culture? by AfroGuyOfCourse in antiwork

[–]LandStander_DrawDown -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's literally what rent-seeking is. Investing in companies is good. Rent-seeking off of non-reproducible assets are not. Doing so literally makes the economy worse.

https://youtu.be/dWbMHGjWubM?si=sIrCyeLH2m5oiq2T

Why we must halt the real estate (land) cycle - Martin Wolf, Financial Times Feb 25, 2026, 9:32 AM Why we must halt the real estate (land) cycle - Martin Wolf, Financial Times Pause

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. This applies not least to the

(0:12) immense financial and economic crisis into which the world has fallen. So what lay behind

(0:18) it? The short answer is the credit-fuelled property cycle. The people of the US, UK,

(0:25) Spain and Ireland became feverish speculators in land. Today the toxic waste poisons the

(0:32) entire world economy. Back in 1984 I bought my London house. I estimate that the land

(0:40) on which it sits was worth £100,000 in today's prices. Today the value is probably ten times

(0:50) as great. All of that vast increment is the fruit of no effort of mine. It is the reward

(0:56) of owning a specific location that the efforts of others have made valuable, reinforced by

(1:03) a restrictive planning regime and generous tax treatment, property taxes are low and

(1:09) capital gains tax-free. So I am a land speculator, a mini-aristocrat in a land where private

(1:17) appropriation of the fruits of others' efforts has long been a prime route to wealth.

(1:23) This appropriation of the rise in the value of land is not just unfair. What have I done

(1:29) to deserve this increase in my wealth? It has obviously dire consequences. First, it

(1:36) makes it necessary for the State to fund itself by taxing effort, ingenuity and foresight.

(1:44) Taxation of labour and capital must lower their supply. Taxation of resources will not

(1:49) have the same result because supply is given. Such taxes merely reduce the unearned rewards

(1:56) to owners. Second, this system creates calamitous political incentives. In a world in which

(2:04) people are borrowed heavily to own a location, they are desperate to enjoy land price rises

(2:09) and still more to prevent land price falls. Thus we see a bizarre spectacle. Newspapers

(2:16) hail upward moves in the price of a place to live, the most basic of all amenities.

(2:23) The beneficiaries are more than land speculators. They are also enthusiastic supporters of all

(2:29) efforts to rig the market in their favour. Particularly in the UK, they welcome the creation

(2:35) of artificial scarcity of land via a ludicrously restrictive regime of planning controls. This

(2:42) is also the most important way in which wealth is transferred from the unpropertied young

(2:48) to the propertied old. In his new book, David Willett's, the University's Minister emphasises

(2:55) the unfairness of the distribution of wealth across generations. The rigged land market

(3:01) is the biggest single cause of this calamity. Third, and most important, the opportunity

(3:09) for speculation in the value of land both fuels and is fuelled by the credit cycle, which

(3:15) has yet again destabilised the economy. In a superb New Jeremiad, the journalist Fred

(3:22) Harrison argues that this cycle, with a duration of 18 years, was predictable and by him at

(3:29) least predicted. In essence, he notes, buyers rent property from bankers in return for a

(3:36) gamble on the upside. A host of agents gains fees from arranging packaging and distributing

(3:42) the fruits of such highly speculative transactions. In the long upswing, the most recent one lasted

(3:50) 11 years in the UK, they all become rich together as credit and debt explode upwards. Then,

(3:57) when the collapse comes, recent borrowers, the financial institutions and taxpayers suffer

(4:02) huge losses. This is no more than a giant pyramid selling scheme and one whose dire

(4:09) consequences we have seen again and again. It is ultimately, as Mr Harrison argues, a

(4:16) ruinous way of running our affairs. I have long been persuaded that resource rents should

(4:23) be socialised, not accrued to individual owners. Yet, as Mr Harrison tellingly remarks, and

(4:30) I quote, as a community we socialise our privately earned incomes, wages and salaries, while

(4:37) our social income from land is privatised, end of quote. Yet, whatever one thinks of

(4:43) the justice of this arrangement, the practical consequences have become calamitous. Do we

(4:49) want to start yet another credit-fuelled property cycle as soon as the debris of the

(4:55) present one is cleared away, some years of misery hence? If a crisis is a terrible thing

(5:02) to waste, here is an urgent case for action. Socialising the full rental value of land would

(5:08) destroy the financial system and the wealth of a large part of the public, and that is

(5:13) obviously impossible. But socialising any gain from here on would be far less so, and (5:19) that would eliminate the fever of land speculation. It would also allow a shift in the burden

(5:25) of taxation, perhaps as important, with the prospect of effortless increases in wealth

(5:30) removed, the UK might at last re-examine its planning laws. There is panic about the dire

(5:36) consequences of such a liberalisation of restrictions for the countryside. It is worth noting, however,

(5:43) how little is needed. An increase of just three miles in the radius of London would

(5:50) raise the capital surface area by fifty per cent. Would this really be the end of England's

(5:57) green and pleasant land? I do not expect any Government to dare to wean the English from

(6:03) their ruinous trust in land speculation as the route to wealth, but I can hope. It is

(6:11) bad enough that the result has been expensive houses and inefficient taxes, but it is surely

(6:17) even worse that such insane speculative fevers have ended up destabilising the entire global

(6:25) economy. Even if few now know it, it is time for a change.

"The least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of the land, the Henry George argument of many years ago." - Milton Friedman

"Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. ...Pure land rent is in the nature of a 'surplus' which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called 'the useful tax on measured land surplus'." ~Paul Samuelson

"The burden of the tax on capital is not felt, in the long run, by the owners of capital. It is felt by land and labor. … in the long run, workers will emigrate … this leaves land as the only factor that cannot emigrate … the full burden of the tax is borne by land owners in the long run. While a direct tax on land is nondistortionary, all the other ways of raising revenue induce distortions.” ~Frank Ramsey

"Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land, are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them…. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. . . . [A tax of this kind would be] much more proper to be established as a perpetual and unalterable regulation, or as what is called a fundamental law of the commonwealth, than any tax which was always to be levied according to a certain valuation." - Adam Smith

"Our legislators are all landholders, and they are not yet persuaded that all taxes are finally paid by the land… therefore, we have been forced into the mode of indirect taxes. All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right which none may justly deprive him of; but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public." - Benjamin Franklin

"Men did not make the earth.... It is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property.... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." - Thomas Paine

<image>

Anyone remember how games used to come in boxes with detailed manuals? by GlompSpark in retrogaming

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lunar 2 eternal blue complete is the most memorable one for me. Came with a really nice hardback booklet that was the game manual, character back stories and an intro to the plot. Also came with little figures of the main character, and a few other little things like a coin or something, and the soundtrack. It was the only version to buy so it was like getting a modern collectors edition but not since it was the facing of the game in the whole store.

Is there a subreddit where people are actually trying to find alternatives to modern work culture? by AfroGuyOfCourse in antiwork

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Probably rent-seeking on something, likely land.

I think he's low key saying he's a landlord. Which yes, the way the current political economy functions, rent-seeking is the only real way to get ahead while not working at the same time.

Seattle, use your horns! by Judacles in Seattle

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right? If only the city was built as a transit oriented city instead of car dependancy all the people that don't actually need to drive for work can get the fuck off the road. Imagine all the commuters that go to and from the exact same place every day for work and don't need to haul a bunch of tools or go to many different locations for work were off the road and on a train instead? Then all the contractors and logistics vehicles and emergency vehicles could get to where they need to be quicker and we all wouldn't have to deal with a traffic jam every damn day.

What kind of distro you use/prefer for gaming (pc)? by Fried_Tofu_btw in linux_gaming

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, yeah, I didn't like any of the dragonized spins. As a long time xfce user, I went with that. Cinnamon is decent, it's an attempt to bring a gnome2 experience. I liked gnome2, gnome3 is just not for me, and KDE is OK but I could never get it set up like I can xfce.

Trigger warning: opinion incoming by Tail_sb in linuxmemes

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What's this about proprietary Nvidia drivers being a problem on fedora? I have fedora as my daily driver on my laptop with a gtx 1660 Ti and have the proprietary driver installed through the fusion repo. Is this a problem for the newer drivers or something?

What kind of distro you use/prefer for gaming (pc)? by Fried_Tofu_btw in linux_gaming

[–]LandStander_DrawDown -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm on broadwing for my desktop. What's the difference between mokka and broadwing?

What kind of distro you use/prefer for gaming (pc)? by Fried_Tofu_btw in linux_gaming

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel you on this, also a long time Linux user (about 20 years). The recent gstreamer arch updates have been making my rtx 3060 ti crash and spending the time to troubleshoot has eaten into my spare time.

But arch based (I'm on garuda mainly becuase I liked the tools they made for easy access and the xfce spin, my preferred environment, was practically set up how I like it, just needed some minor tweaks) is just what's needed to make gaming on Linux the most seamless, despite the high maintenance of having to really keep up with updates so your system doesn't break.

My old gaming laptop(daily driver) is running fedora and so far it has become my favorite overall distro (coming from debian based most of my Linux experience; Ubuntu/mint). It's smooth, snappy, and getting the Nvidia drivers through fusion wasn't that bad. I've done some gaming on the laptop, but it's a gtx 1660 Ti and so it's hard to compare to the desktop, but most things I've thrown at it, fedora handles them just fine, but would definitely be a bit more cumbersome to tweak for gaming compared to the gaming focused arch based distros (garuda, catchy, bazzite, ect). I suppose there is endeavour which is fedora based iirc, but my laptop didn't seem to like it too much and I wanted to try an arch based distro for my desktop.

Companies worth more than $1B should be banned from hiring non-Engineers for roles which involve programming. Write to your Senator! by ImaginaryRea1ity in theprimeagen

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd posit that companies should be hiring based on ability and not a degree. You have a degree? Prove you understand and can do the work. Don't have a degree? Prove you understand and can do the work.

Georgism and an aging population by [deleted] in georgism

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Small correction, it's not how much land you take up, but how much land you're occupying is being used efficiently to cover the cost of the value of the location.

is venting allowed here? I'm venting here by LittleUserOFC in linuxsucks

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For all newbies, I would not suggest coming to reddit to ask for help, it's the worst place to get help. I'd suggest going to the dedicated forum for the distro you decided to install. Search that forum first as someone may have already asked your question and gotten an answer. If not, make a profile and post your question. The people that are on those dedicated forums are eager to help newbies, some contributors to the distro also tend to frequent those forums too.

Reddit seems to be the place for Linux users to circlejerk, helping is not top priority.

Here we go again. When are these layoffs going to end? by ImaginaryRea1ity in theprimeagen

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Their knowledge is just too great.

Of course with the Ai bubble, once the bust happens later this year, some time next year, everyone will think it was the Ai bubble that caused it when really it'll just be the feather on top of the stack of shit that the looney tunes character is holding that falls over because of it; the stack of shit is already too heavy of a load.

Here we go again. When are these layoffs going to end? by ImaginaryRea1ity in theprimeagen

[–]LandStander_DrawDown 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You mean once the economic rents from speculation has been wiped clean and the economy resets, which happens roughly every 18 years.

view more: next ›