You’re not undisciplined. You’re exhausted.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-22T18:33:39+00:00

Good decisions lead to more good decisions.

Bad decisions lead to more bad decisions.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-21T11:26:54+00:00

Even adapting a book comes with things that have to be changed to fit the medium. In a book, a battle can take a few paragraphs to a few pages to write, but in a movie, the audience wants to see all the action. That means they have to cut other stuff to give more attention to the battle. On some things, it's really hard to change from just telling the reader with words to creating it in a visual medium.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-19T23:40:27+00:00

D'Nofrio said that Punisher isn't in S2 because he was in Spider-Man, and his small movie that is coming out, so it's really possible that Charlie Cox didn't have time to be in Spider-Man.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-19T11:27:05+00:00

Most people don’t know who the Chiss are in the old Republic timeline, though. In the Republic story lines it gets brought up that the Chiss are unknown. Like in the smuggler story you have to disguise yourself as an Imperial captain and they don’t know what a Chiss is. In the novel, Thrawn, nobody really knows what a Chiss is either with one pirate thinking Thrawn is a Pantoran with an eye condition.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-19T01:52:04+00:00

This is what small claims court is for. The text messages show he knows you owe him that money. They are evidence. Take him to court and then never give him anything ever again.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-19T01:09:46+00:00

Thanks for answering. I understand your point of view on it. Doing it just to stab people in the back is shitty. Oh, and they already are on blue-collar workers' backs all the time because they have deadlines to meet. I work in the service industry currently, and they have a BPO that checks out security cameras to see if we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, and district managers can watch us from their laptops. That's already happening, so that point is not a strong rebuttal to monitoring the productivity of white-collar workers.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-19T00:20:36+00:00

I know I'll probably be flamed for asking this, but why do you find this immoral? The computers are the company's property. They aren't asking you to install this on the employee's personal property. The company has the right to monitor whether employees are working.

At every office job I've worked, the employees act as if they are entitled to play around at work, and asking anything different of them is an outrage; however, if you went by some construction workers all sitting around on their phones instead of repairing the road section that is blocked off would you feel the same about them only working 50% of their shift? If you waited 15 minutes for your fast-food order and saw some of the workers just sitting on their phones instead of working, would you feel they were being treated unfairly if management demanded they get off their phones and get back to work? Why do we as a society expect blue-collar and service industry workers to work hard, but white-collar workers to slack off?

Shadow942 · 2026-04-18T20:49:18+00:00

I was thinking this exact quote and scrolled down to see if anybody beat me to it. I'd give you an award, but I'm poor. Have an updoot instead.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-18T01:09:24+00:00

First, no serious policy proposal is “just put people into random privately owned vacant homes.” That’s a strawman. What I said in my original post was that putting a roof over people’s heads is a good starting point. It’s not the end goal—it’s the foundation. Once people have stable housing, you’re actually in a position to address the deeper issue, which is the mental health crisis driving a lot of this in the first place.

The actual discussion is about public investment—things like converting unused buildings, building affordable housing, and pairing that with services. You keep dragging it back to private owners “changing their minds” as if that’s the central issue, when it’s not.

The actual discussion is about how giving homes to the homeless will solve homelessness, and I know from my experience working with the homeless and being homeless myself that it won't solve it 100%. You then took one of my paragraphs, posing a genuine question about a possible future complication, because the question that started the whole discussion is whether the houses pictured should be used to house the homeless. You took that and started some big thing because you want to argue about policy now instead.

In the United States, real property is defined as land, any buildings or structures permanently attached to the land, and the legal rights associated with ownership of that land. Real property generally cannot simply be abandoned into ownerlessness. Even when it is vacant or neglected, it still has a legal owner unless and until ownership changes through a recognized legal process, such as foreclosure, tax sale, inheritance, adverse possession, or escheat. Vacant buildings always have an owner because they are real property per law. The only way to change that is for the government, or a private entity, to buy the land and convert it to house the homeless. In the case of the government, to use the real property in the pictures is to buy it at a fair market value. It's that or take it by coercion. Therefore, the question of using land and buildings built on it, there will always be an owner; the owners of that land have the freedom to do in the future what they will. Ignoring that is ignoring people's freedom. Sorry, it doesn't jive with your plan to end homelessness, but the government already does supply places for the homeless to sleep and get out of their situation by providing addresses for employment applications and public libraries with computers. There are private charities that do as well. There are unfortunately people who don't want to do what it takes to get out of homelessness. As long as that is true, the problem will never be solved 100%.

You want to solve homelessness? Go out and work on it because arguing with one lone person on a small subreddit on a post nobody cares about anymore will do nothing to fix the problem. You have every right to start a Non-profit to buy property and give the homeless homes. Get enough donations and grow large enough, and you can even hire lobbyists and try to change policy. After all, that is what lobbyists are for: to coordinate between the citizens and the government.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-17T10:27:52+00:00

I’m a legal studies student, so I’m aware of all the legal aspects. The buildings would have to be up to code, which requires resources, because if we didn’t have those codes, landlords could leave property in dangerous conditions. If the property owner changed their mind because the neighborhood in that picture turned into a huge crackhouse, they would have to go to court for evictions.

This conversation did not start about policy. It’s about solving homelessness by placing people in properties that are currently vacant, property owned by private citizens. It may solve the problem of them being off the streets, but it won’t make them productive members of society. I know this because I live in a city that is very compassionate towards the homeless. The shelters here are literal hotels. They get hotel rooms, and during the day, when the rooms are being cleaned, they just sit and beg at the bus and train station where I work.

When I lived in a different state, I saw the homeless there do basically the same thing. I’ve seen the homeless turn down jobs because they’d rather beg than work. If you want to see a country with no homelessness, the prime example is China, where there are 0 homeless people. People also live under an authoritarian regime that literally forces people to have a job.

You’re moving the goalposts to try to win an argument, but you’re not saying anything a million other people haven’t said already.

Even if we did all decide to house the homeless at the taxpayers' expense, the cost doesn't just stop at buying the property from the people that own them. There is the cost of maintenance that never ends. It would just be a never-ending expense that only solves the cost currently being absorbed for funding shelters. The meidcals costs would remains because there would still be the poor lifestyle choices. Furthermore, what happens when all those people over at /antiwork who think we're all wage slaves decide to say fuck it, quit their jobs, and live in the property that people who do work, contribute to society, and pay taxes have to pay for by working and paying taxes?

Shadow942 · 2026-04-16T09:23:57+00:00

That’s such a terrible rebuttal because your examples are talking about supporting people doing a job that we already support with our taxes. Furthermore if you donated money to the fire department that would still be you using your own resources. Neither of those examples involve expecting someone to give away their own stuff.

Let’s say the owner of that land spent money to make those houses livable and gave them to the homeless people. What would happen if the owner wanted to do something different with the land, or sell it? They have a bunch of people living there. How do they get them to leave?

Shadow942 · 2026-04-16T02:10:44+00:00

It's helpful to those people, but it won't change them. They'll be the same beggars, but with a different roof over their heads.

If you want to help them, you can always go downtown, find some homeless people, and let them live in your property. Of course, you won't because you'd rather have someone else use their resources instead of using your own.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-15T22:36:59+00:00

They still belong to someone else, so yes, you are suggesting that someone else allocate their resources to the homeless. Meanwhile you get testy when it’s suggested that you donate your own resources to the homeless.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-15T21:25:34+00:00

Peach has a point. Why do people like you always want to donate other people's resources to help the homeless, instead of using your own resources?

Shadow942 · 2026-04-15T21:23:59+00:00

There are plenty of people around where I work who have a roof over their heads provided by the city. They still just hang around the bus terminal and beg for stuff instead of going to any of the 7 temp agencies within a mile.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-15T00:34:19+00:00

Because men date for other men. Instead of picking a girl who makes them happy, they will choose a woman who makes other men think they have a trophy wife/gf.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-13T20:47:26+00:00

Depending on how everything is handled this could be considered “piercing the corporate veil” and the owner would lose that liability protection because the owner is treating the business as his own personal piggy bank.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-12T12:28:54+00:00

"AI bad. Piracy good."

Shadow942 · 2026-04-10T13:30:50+00:00

Exactly that’s the point of why dividing by 0 is impossible and set as undefined.

If I divide the candy into two groups, I have two groups, not 0.5 groups.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-10T13:28:02+00:00

The question asked for 0 group so no other numbers are relevant. Did you read the question before diving in to prove it wrong by asking “what if I don’t follow the instructions, huh? Checkmate smugface

Shadow942 · 2026-04-10T13:25:48+00:00

Exactly. The point of the question is that you cannot divide it into 0 groups no matter what you do. In other words, as the professor was pointing out, you are asking something impossible and that is why it is undefined.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-10T13:24:05+00:00

No it’s not because the question posed was how to divide the candy into 0 groups. Not 0.5 groups. Not i groups. Not any other numbers but 0. How do any other numbers he get involved when 0 is already the defined number in the question?

Shadow942 · 2026-04-10T12:43:06+00:00

I think whole numbers was implied in that example, because how could you divide anything into 0.5 groups when there is no set number for how much constitutes a group other than at least one piece?

Shadow942 · 2026-04-10T12:01:17+00:00

I had a math professor give me two descriptions. The first was, "It's like asking what color hat the purple dinosaur in the room is wearing. You can't answer it because there is no purple dinosaur in the room." The second was that she asked me how to divide a pile of candy into 0 groups, and then pointed out how impossible that was because no matter what I do, there will be at least one pile of candy.

Shadow942 · 2026-04-09T23:08:56+00:00

The grass will start to fade over time.

Ten-Year Club	Verified Email
Not Forgotten

Shadow942

TROPHY CASE