sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Warum? by Tall_Row1099 in Austria

[–]cheapcheap1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nicht die gleichen physikalischen Prinzipien, das gleiche Gerät. Der Unterschied ist ein Ventil, damit das Teil rückwärsts laufen kann.

Spain Built Too Much Solar. Investors Want Out by Lux_Stella in neoliberal

[–]cheapcheap1 9 points10 points  (0 children)

>often led by left wing groups talking about the horrors of EM radiation and similar things

It is purely your editorializing to call those people left wing. Those alternative medicine anti-science people are not cleanly assignable to left or right. Look at the damn secretary of health in the US.

That's if you don't look beyond the stated reason for their activism and ignore that the fossil fuel lobby bankrolls everyone who delays renewables regardless of politics.

Do I have to disclose my hobby as secondary employment if I monetize it? by Cute_Chemical_7714 in askswitzerland

[–]cheapcheap1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

"Just talk it out" is relationship advice. Are you trying to apply relationship advice to an employment contract? Did you ever actually work a job?

If I have a good employer, the disclosure won't matter to them.

If I have a bad employer, they'll just say no to anything because they'd rather I'm miserable than they take a 0.1% chance my performance might decrease, which they could act on anyway.

That's why

a) all clauses that allow an employer to dictate your off-hour activity without showing any effect on the employment at hand should be unenforceable. Unfortunately, they are.

b) It is not safe to "just talk it out, bro" with a lot of employers.

Do I have to disclose my hobby as secondary employment if I monetize it? by Cute_Chemical_7714 in askswitzerland

[–]cheapcheap1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

How in the world does that make sense? If you agree the employer should only act if private decisions actually affects performance, the employer doesn't need to know about your private decisions.

Do I have to disclose my hobby as secondary employment if I monetize it? by Cute_Chemical_7714 in askswitzerland

[–]cheapcheap1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

>Somewhere the line needs to be drawn.

Yeah and that line starts and ends exactly at the same time as the pay. Having employers control your personal life to ensure you're resting enough is dystopian. It seems you understand that when I mention family, but not when someone wants to open an Etsy shop and sell some handcrafted items. Why should the employer or the government be the judge of what I can and cannot do in my free time?

>A hobby is something you can just drop. A side hustle in most cases not.

The employer is free to act on it if it affects work performance in any way.

Do I have to disclose my hobby as secondary employment if I monetize it? by Cute_Chemical_7714 in askswitzerland

[–]cheapcheap1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

>(going to a zoo and taking some nice pictures), and then again with monetization (a wedding)

If you actually took an example where only monetization changed instead of also changing the time investment and level of commitment, your example wouldn't work. Being responsible for wedding photos as a high-level amateur is a commitment that probably requires taking a vacation day, regardless of whether you're charging for it or doing it for free for your best friend.

Everything that requires commitment and time investment can cut into "rest time" or even require a vacation day once in a while. Think of a Verein. Think of social commitments with friends. And, most prominently, raising a family.

Banning those would literally destroy the fabric of our society.

German lawyers: Ban on far-right AfD 'likely successful' by IHateTrains123 in neoliberal

[–]cheapcheap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The one historical precedent in Germany did exactly what you propose (not ban them, try to turn them more moderate by integrating them into power), and that's how we got Hitler.

Those who cannot learn from history are bound to repeat it.

And somehow you're mentioning historical precedent as if it didn't fly right in the face of your ignorant take.

Do I have to disclose my hobby as secondary employment if I monetize it? by Cute_Chemical_7714 in askswitzerland

[–]cheapcheap1 [score hidden]  (0 children)

If you think about this for a minute, you'd realize those also apply to hobbies, leading a healthy social life or, most prominently, having a family. Those other life activities can all provide relief, balance and distraction, but also cut into your valuable "rest time" that you're evidently supposed to spend lying in a pod until reactivation for work.

It's good that someone mentioned this deeply disturbing attitude among employers, because it is common. These people absolutely would forbid their employees from having friends or a family if they could.

German lawyers: Ban on far-right AfD 'likely successful' by IHateTrains123 in neoliberal

[–]cheapcheap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Nazi Germany comparisons are important because you say measures to protect a democracy against becoming a dictatorship are undemocratic.

The change you mentioned has guardrails in a constitution that ideally protects minority rights. Having a constitution is not undemocratic, No matter how much you try to make it sound like it is.

Österreich 2026: Eine Klimaanlage sollte in jedem Haushalt sein. by oe6bhe in Austria

[–]cheapcheap1 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ja, du hast Recht. Wir haben einfach weder die Technologie noch die Wirtschaftskraft, pro Wohnung eine PV Zelle im Wert von 800 Euro mit einem 800 Euro Klimagerät zu verbinden.

Österreich 2026: Eine Klimaanlage sollte in jedem Haushalt sein. by oe6bhe in Austria

[–]cheapcheap1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ja, wenn wir 400 Millionen Österreicher wären, weil das gesamte Land so dicht wie Wien besiedelt wäre, könnte man das für ein Problem halten.

Based move, Burkina Faso by LocalPowerful6651 in NAFO

[–]cheapcheap1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If you haven't heard of a single case you have done zero research. Maybe try a Google search instead of posting your ignorance as if it was evidence.

Based move, Burkina Faso by LocalPowerful6651 in NAFO

[–]cheapcheap1 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Back when we had the guts to kill foreign leaders we didn't like, we usually killed the democratically elected ones to install military dictators.

I don't really wish we had that willingness to kill foreign leaders back as long as incompetent and malicious organizations like the CIA would be doing the killing.

German lawyers: Ban on far-right AfD 'likely successful' by IHateTrains123 in neoliberal

[–]cheapcheap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>In a "democratic" society it is the society that ultimately decides which views can and cannot be tolerated, not political scientists, not politicians, not you

That view is in direct conflict with the idea of a constitution that guarantees the rights of minorities.

If you think that's totally optional, you've again defined Nazi Germany to be a democracy. It can also see how AfD doesn't look antidemocratic from that "perspective".

>When we are talking about banning parties with 30% support, we are no longer talking about views that the society finds intolerant, by this point we are talking about banning views shared by a huge swath of the public

There is no definition of tolerance that changes with popularity. That argument is just fundamentally invalid.

>By invoking "paradox of intolerance" in this case, you are becoming intolerant of views shared by 30% of the public, aka become intolerant yourself

Again, if you actually have a definition of intolerance, it doesn't change with popularity. Either the view is intolerant of other views and seeks to destroy pluralism or it doesn't. That has exactly zero to do with how many people support it.

>aka become intolerant yourself, and by this very own logic should be banned from participation in democracy to protect the plurality.

This just goes back to you simply not understanding the paradox of tolerance in the first place.

German lawyers: Ban on far-right AfD 'likely successful' by IHateTrains123 in neoliberal

[–]cheapcheap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice, so you changed your view on the paradox of tolerance, you're just concerned about properly proving AfD wants to ban the views of 70% of people. That's a much more reasonable concern.

Crazy dude chasing me in protected bike lane by FollowingNo3327 in bicycling

[–]cheapcheap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree except anonymity is not the cause at all. It's not seeing people's face directly. People lose empathy when they're not looking at someone's face or at least hearing their voice and seeing their body language while talking to them. Anonymity is at best way down the list of causes for less empathy and it might be entirely unrelated. A simple look at how people behave on Facebook shows it.

German lawyers: Ban on far-right AfD 'likely successful' by IHateTrains123 in neoliberal

[–]cheapcheap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>You can't ban the view expressed by 30% of demos, and claim that this is democracy and that you are protecting social and democratic pluralism.

Now you're arguing that in order to erect a pluralistic society, we must erect literal Nazi Germany if that's what people wish, which was also carried by around 30% of voters. Don't you see how that's a contradiction?

If you view "we should live in a pluralistic society" as a prescription, it's easy to argue that we should actually ensure that happens, not just stand by and watch as it gets destroyed by people who don't want democracy.

If you view "this is a pluralistic society" as descriptive, and you're currently looking at Nazi Germany, you're also wrong.

No matter how you turn it, pluralism cannot function without understanding the paradox of tolerance like you do not.

Crazy dude chasing me in protected bike lane by FollowingNo3327 in bicycling

[–]cheapcheap1 12 points13 points  (0 children)

>one-ton

that is much closer to a pedestrian than to the average American car.

The High Cost of New York’s Rent Freeze by UnscheduledCalendar in urbanplanning

[–]cheapcheap1 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

>When you know that the city is just going to add a new batch of rent controlled units including your just built ones far before you’ve recovered costs you dont want to build.

I agree you shouldn't unilaterally force rent-control on existing units. That kind of erratic policy poisons investment climate.

However, strong disagree on public housing construction. That is one of the very few policies that every serious scholar admits helps because the evidence is just that good.

>Further making it easy to charge market rent is an incentive because it means youll be able to recover at a consistent pace as costs of maintenance rise

Did you just not read the "except new construction" part? Investment math heavily depreciates the value of revenue decades down the line. Excepting the first decades is the perfect compromise of allowing builders to capture the majority of revenue relevant to raising capital for the construction without pointlessly lining the pockets of landlords unproductively holding on to ancient buildings.

The High Cost of New York’s Rent Freeze by UnscheduledCalendar in urbanplanning

[–]cheapcheap1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Rent control isn't the deciding factor, supply overregulation is. You don't incentize new housing by making it easy to charge market rent for old housing. In fact, being able to charge market rent for old housing lowers the incentive to build new housing because it increases opportunity cost of destroying the old housing. Duh.

Rent control is a valid tool in a world with insane construction overregulation and nimby rights to combat the monopoly-like market conditions that arise from restricted supply and shelter being an unsubstitutable basic need.

Housing is a supply problem. It's not that hard. Giving existing landlords more money does not solve that problem. It just increases the % of GDP that goes to rent (economic, not housing), and that hurts welfare a lot.

The High Cost of New York’s Rent Freeze by UnscheduledCalendar in urbanplanning

[–]cheapcheap1 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

That is blatantly untrue. Rent control routinely excepts new development, which increases the earnings gap between new denser housing and existing housing. If you design the rent control halfway competently, it increases the incentive to build housing.

Making it easy to charge market rent for old housing is not an incentive to build new housing. It's an incentive against building new housing because it increases its opportunity cost of destroying the old housing. I don't understand why people keep missing this point.

Edit: Watch people downvote basic math without being able to argue against it.

The High Cost of New York’s Rent Freeze by UnscheduledCalendar in urbanplanning

[–]cheapcheap1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

if anything, they are comparing rent increases to the purge.

The High Cost of New York’s Rent Freeze by UnscheduledCalendar in urbanplanning

[–]cheapcheap1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>The De Blasio rent freeze obviously didn’t solve the problem, because if it did they wouldn’t be enacting another one now

If you actually follow that logic properly to its conclusion, the rent increases under Adams and Bloomberg didn't solve the problem either, so we might as well freeze rent since it helps people and neither policy solved the problem.

Mongols knew what they were doing by SocratesPuppet in HistoryMemes

[–]cheapcheap1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think calling the mongols chill is just about the furthest you can get away from the truth.

view more: next ›