and I distinctly said that it should be “a right”

Yes, you did, but you said it as part of an answer to the question “why are landlords considered parasites?”, and you explained that those who own more homes than they can live in are parasites. The logical conclusion (would be that it should be outlawed to be a landlord.

So, how am I to understand that? Should there be a quota, an acceptable amount of parasites so to speak?

People own apartments too. If you can’t own more than one home, surely apartments would also be covered by that?

If that means the government* subsidises it for the low income families (as in owns them and rents them at below market value), so be it.

Not everybody who doesn’t want to buy is low income. I’m too lazy / risk averse to maintain everything myself, so I happily pay my landlord a reasonable premium to bear the risk of shit burning down (or breaking in less dramatic ways) for me. I also like that I would be able to pack up and move without worrying about selling my old place. I might change my mind later on, but right now I’m good.

Why should governments subsidize the lifestyle choice I’m consciously making?

You assume that everybody wants to own and that just isn’t the case.

A jury can rule somebody not guilty even if they are convinced that they did the thing.

You’re not alone.

I honestly never used open voice chats in games, but I do miss Barrens chat.

Nah. Corporations aren’t all knowing godlike beings. They are run by stupid people who make mistakes, just like us.

That explains it and I did indeed overlook it. Thanks for the heads up.

Keep in mind that our voting system is actually built so the parliament represents the popular vote as closely as possible. It’s not just an assembly of winners of individual “winner takes all” decisions. The average being above 0 in the graph should indeed mean left parties would be in the majority more often than not.

Edit: Another comment reminded me that the graphs only show 18-29 year olds. That explains it somewhat.

The gap sounds plausible, but I highly doubt the overall positions relative to 0.

E.g., the Federal Republic of Germany has had conservative chancellors for 51 years out of the 75 since it was founded. We did not have a constant left majority (I assume that is what they mean by liberal, since the actual sense of the term doesn’t make sense as an opposite to “conservative”).

Edit: I fucked up, this is only about people below 30.

Noob question:

Is there any advantage over my phone’s stock email client, considering 99% of my emails are confirmation emails from online shops and similar stuff and I hardly ever actually send an email to anyone or receive one from an actual person anymore?

Only 63%?

There are differences of course. Still, Steam’s policy, which is often internationally praised as consumer friendly, is very restrictive from a European perspective.

I can get faulty physical goods fixed/refunded by the store up to 2 years after purchase (EU). It’s the store’s problem to get a refund from the manufacturer. The same should be true in case of Valve and a publisher.

It takes way more effort from the user and leads to more people dropping out.

Then make it 0 to 3 or 0 to 1 for all I care. You missed the point, which is: If I want or don’t want feature A doesn’t influence if I want or don’t want feature B, and linking the two distorts the results of the poll.

in the end, the result is the same in Aggregate.

Not if you include the human factor of the decision maker, who can twist “wanted less” into “still wanted a bit” as a justification if they want a certain feature for different reasons than user benefit (like, say, a “privacy friendly” but indeed not at all privacy friendly mechanism to give data to add networks). That doesn’t fly with “0 points”.

The person evaluating the poll will take away “person likes option 1 most” not “person absolutely wants none of these in their browser, ever”. That’s the issue. You should not phrase questions in a way that assumes parts of the answer, at least not if you want useful results.

A better way would have been to let us rate features 0 to 10 and just accept if people thought their feature ideas are all shit.

That’s already suggestive. What if you want none of them, and strongly so?

Look at Germany for example. Lots of FKK (nude) areas. No one really bats an eye.

We still don’t appreciate our nudes posted online, fake or not.

You’re sooooo close to an epiphany buddy.