MentalEdge

What do you mean?

Any post, on any service, is technically accessible on any other instance, running any service. Actual implementation, varies.

Unless you run into it in the feed, the way to find a given post is to enter the original instance url for it into search on the instance from which you want to interact with it.

To upvote this post, for example, even from an instance that it hasn't federated to, I can enter the url to this post on its host instance into search, and the other instance will fetch the post, allowing me to vote and/or comment.

Same goes for mastodon toots. Get the url, put into search, upvote, comment, whatever.

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 4d ago

Since he didn't realize it was a different mouse, he would never have tried pairing it without first removing the other mouse.

Since he would have always thought it was the same, already paired, mouse.

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

Refer to my other comment.

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

It does rely on people putting relevant hashtags on their posts, but do you want to hear from someone who doesn't do that?

Why wouldn't I?

Hashtags are not even close to a reliable way to follow a subject. The fact that people can post without them, means a lot of people don't. Not because they don't have something interesting to say, but because they are posting it for their followers. The entire culture around how discussion should be conducted is different among users used to the twitter format.

To post on lemmy, your post must be associated with a relevant community. Hence, posts go out to subscribers interested in the subject, rather than to the followers of the user. As such, posts live or die on the merit of their content. Not who posted it.

4

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

I don't like the twitter format.

I'm interested in following subjects, not individual people.

1

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

In my very first reply to you:

If there isn't an overabundance of food (as you yourself admit, housing is insufficient).

This whole time I've been trying to tell you, "no, that is actually a problem" because you started off by minimizing the contribution of corporate interests to the housing problem. I guess I should have made the the implied "as well" more obvious, but it was always there.

You didn't start off with "we need more housing". You started off with "it's not the companies and they are good actually".

So no, I wasn't gonna reply with "yes, and". I didn't have the option because what you started with needed actual refuting, first.

3

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

Did I at some point say we don't need more housing?

Protip: switch to "yes, and".

You won't get a positive response by continuing with "no, actually".

I believe these same corporate forces are a major reason why housing isn't being built. Hence my focus is on them, not simply "build more homes".

In my city, homes are being built, but only by the rich for the rich. I'm finnish, btw.

5

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

Well then, we're back to some people cutting their costs by doing all the things I said above. You dismissed them all as if reasons why they're not practical are reasons why they're impossible.

No. I dismissed them as insufficient to show up in the stats. In order to significantly impact the situation, the alternative needs to be valid for any individual. Not just some.

All those landlords have the exact same incentives to charge as much as they can get away with, to subdivide properties and to exploit their renters as corporate landlords do.

Duh. But are you really going to claim single property owners competing with every other single property owner, wouldn't have different results than duopolistic companies carving up cities and throwing their weight around in legislation?

Have you considered that larger companies are also able to act to maintain the low supply?

Real-estate and construction overlap a great deal, and that influence also grows with consolidation.

And thanks for linking to a study that confirms what I'm trying to say? 3-7% of the largest bill most people have is not nothing.

Does that percentage account for wage stagnation? Which is also exacerbated by mergers.

Everything else is caused by low supply and such.

A few comments ago you were clamining low supply is the only problem.

7

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

there is no recent increase in vacancy rates

You're looking at the wrong stats. When people are forced to spend more on necessities, they don't cut necessities. They can't. They're necessities.

They cut luxuries.

One such relevant stat, would be piracy spiking. Not to mention the spike in homelessness if we are talking about the US.

You yourself point out that housing is not keeping up with need. Things can absolutely be getting worse (and they are), while at the same time not showing up in vacancy rates. The well-off can be moving into new homes faster than the poor are moving back in with parents. Or going homeless.

Another stat is the average age at which people buy their first home increasing.

Another is the ratio of renters increasing in relation to owners.

investment companies are seeing that housing is shooting up in value already, due to low rates of building, hence making it a more attractive investment relative to other things. So they buy them up and charge high rents - but at the same time all the individual owners of rental property also see that they can charge high rents, and do so. All we've done is swapped who is screwing renters, not by how much.

This is a distinction without a difference. You're saying the chicken came first, while I'm trying to explain chickens come from eggs, and the entire relationship between the two.

Increased consolidation increases the co-ordination of price hiking, hence increasing "how much" screwing is going on. But that doesn't mean a tiny bit of screwing can't get it started.

I'm saying it has gotten so bad because the problem feeds itself. By allowing more investment, the screwing gets harder.

All we've done is swapped who is screwing renters, not by how much.

This is a truly insane take. You're saying if all rented properties were owned by single landlords who owned no other properties, rents today would still be just as high?

9

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

You are bending over backwards to dismiss my points.

Yeah if you literally only 100%, or close to it, of housing in a city, that's true. But no company does in anywhere I'm aware of.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here. Did you misunderstand my point that they don't need to own 100%?

There are cases of massive consolidation but the largest competitor acquires like 17% of housing

That is MASSIVE consolidation! If a huge 10% of homes are unneeded, that means they can set the price for 7% as high as they want!

People can move in with parents

Boomers are selling their homes to these companies, because the payout is ludicrous. They pay so much more than what the home is worth, because the return of renting it back to someone needing a home is literally limitless.

move to a cheaper region unaffected by the attempted market abuse

You know why it's unaffected? Fewer jobs. The pensioners selling their homes can move out there, sure... But the people who need homes in the area they just sold their old home for millions in? Not so much.

share with more people

Right. Because these companies aren't chopping big apartments into smaller units so they sell each room individually. Are you suggesting people start sharing studio apartment closets?

some people will not pay the higher rents

Some is not enough. The whole reason this works is that these companies can squeeze people on necessities, because someone always has to buy from them. To fight this, everyone has to have access to a better option, so that these companies have zero customers. Because as long as they can squeeze someone, they can squeeze harder than any luxury industry could ever dream of.

I just don't think that we have any evidence of the high cost of housing being due to excessive company involvement in housing.

This has literally been studied. It's not about what you "think". You are ignoring current economic facts.

We are seeing housing crises across the western world in all sorts of cities and all sorts of distributions of ownership.

No shit. When someone finds a way to make profit, the method gets copied. No to mention that stuff like airBnBs skirt regulation and often literally operate against local law or building rules. My very first point was that companies don't need to own much to start hiking local prices. Heck, you could be just one wealthy individual who owns two extra houses, and by setting your rents high, contribute to the problem.

There is a thru-line here, but because it's so pervasive, you're saying it can't possibly be it.

11

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

For companies to cause problems they have to buy so many homes they can abuse their market share by forcing rents up

Not necessarily. Your logic only applies to non-necessities. For a necessity, all you need is to own enough of the industry, that you're the only option for some people. If there only exists enough housing to just barely house everyone who needs a home, then you could own only 1%, and set the price to whatever you want, because someone will have to live there. Everywhere else is occupied.

which you would see as an increasing vacancy rate

No, you wouldn't. There is no rent that is so high people will decide to live on the street. They'll keep paying, until they actually can't.

Again, this logic only applies to non-necessities. If you hike the price of food, people don't stop eating. They stop bying luxury goods.

And no, if there isn't an overabundance of food (as you yourself admit, housing is insufficient) they can't just switch to the competition, because the competition does not have the capacity to serve everyone.

1

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

That's the one.

4

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

I also need to work out how to do automatic certificate renewal and if that's even worth doing

This is what certbot is for. For example, with nginx, you just set up the webserver to be reachable via your domain.

You then install and run certbot, and it will aquire, install and configure, and then set itself up to auto-renew, a certificate. All with just one command.

With Nextcloud specifically I also don't like the fact that you can't change the domain after the initial setup

Yes you can?

I've done it thrice now.

Is this some limitation of the docker AIO stack?

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

FolderSync pairs nicely if you want some sync features on android.

On a desktop or laptop I'd just mount it as a drive.

If you really want automatic sync with offline availability, the Nextcloud desktop client has been solid for years now.

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

You were asked about the merit of these platforms.

Your response is mostly a list of comments on the content they host, rather than the platforms.

MentalEdge @sopuli.xyz 1w ago

I don't power it off.

Then again I only let it sleep a couple hours at a time at most, since I know I'm using it again soon. It's not like you lose half the battery by doing that, and the whole point of the fast suspend and resume is so you can stop and go while on the go.

If I'm leaving it overnight, then I power off.