Dude, I have no idea what gave you the impression that I was confused about any of what you just said.
The commenter above me struggled to understand the article and thought that the author was trying to convince individuals to abandon their existing mortgages or to stop refinancing them when lower rates justify the cost of doing so.
The article isn't suggesting that home owners should shoot themselves in the foot by giving up their great fixed rates. They are saying that the incentives are backwards and the system is unfair.
People are less likely to move right now and those who need to buy right now are punished for it. A system that was more fair would spread the pain of high inflation to everyone and even make combating runaway inflation easier. At the moment, the high rates have basically no impact on those (like you and me) who were lucky enough to buy or refi in 2021.
That machine he built will not be anything close to worthless after 6.6 years. I literally just last week moved my spare 1080 ti into a second gaming computer. It came out in 2017.
I'm just a little confused by this one because I've been a heavy user of Spotify since around 2011. I haven't had any loved features pulled out from under me recently so I was trying to figure out what the circle jerk in here was all about.
I had tens of thousands of MP3s before I got into Spotify. The user experience of Spotify is so good that I haven't even considered messing around with managing my own library in more than a decade. I even watched the private communities that were dedicated to sharing MP3 and FLAC disappear as most users just found it easier to use a music streaming service. 🤷♂️
Mind giving some insights on what rug is being pulled by Spotify? You pay them money to access their library and software. When you stop paying, you stop having access. If they raise their prices or remove features, you have the option of stopping your subscription and using an alternative method to listen to music.
This could be better than the current situation but I could imagine a lot of side effects to that system. Maybe if there was a lower threshold that had to be met so we couldn't have situations where someone with 20 votes wins.
You are misquoting the comment above yours. The title of this post is an example of a member trying to exclude himself from the rottenness of the party.
It isn't immutable. There are already 27 amendments.
Lemmy sure attracts some fucking characters. The guy simply pointed out that stealing isn't justified by a 60-second wait. And you are jumping in here ranting about the price of steak for some reason. You're not Robin Hood. You're just a dumbass with a keyboard.
Right. Applying any form of application-level encryption to the account IDs stored in the voting tables would prevent anyone without the secret from being able to find out who voted for what by peeking at the voting tables.
The more I think about this problem, the more solvable it seems to be.
Even under ideal conditions, efuels are still very energy intensive. It's also interesting that the biggest advocates for efuel adoption are oil companies.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/what-are-e-fuels-can-they-help-make-cars-co2-free-2023-03-07/
You also should try to elaborate on what it means to "cheat" because it sounds like you are just making up a Boogeyman after listening to too much Fox News.