I assume that everyone who wants to own a home wants to own a home and many of those aren’t able to. That’s the current reality.
Edit: I reread what I said and I distinctly said that it should be “a right”. Having a right to do something is not the same as having an obligation to do something. Imo home ownership should be a right for everyone, but that doesn’t make it an obligation.
Owning your place to live should be a right. Anyone who holds more housing stock than they personally need and who will only let it out if there’s profit on their investment (because if it’s an investment, then there is an expectation that the line must always go up, which is also very inflationary), tightens the market and makes it harder for other people to become a home owner.
The big difference between renting and paying of a mortgage, is that by paying off the mortgage, the home owner has build up equity and secured a financially more secure future. But if someone is too poor to get a mortgage to afford the inflated house prices (inflated because other people treat it like an investment), then in the current system they pay rent to pay off the mortgage/debt of their landlord and after the renter has paid off their landlord’s mortgage, they’ll still be poor and without any equity themselves.
It’s a very antisocial system. And with landlords building up more and more equity on the backs of people who are unable to build up equity themselves, there’s a good reason why landlords are often said to be parasitic.
They don’t have to prove that someone is not a qualified elector to disenfranchise them, throwing up barriers to make it very hard / impossible to vote is enough. In the past the federal government could intervene if something like that happened, but that’s not really possible anymore thanks to the current scotus, so it’s up to the states.
And this state is now laying the legal groundwork: If “every” persons with xxx qualifications has the right the vote by law and new measures get implemented that make it practically impossible to vote for certain people that fit those qualifications, then those people had a right withheld from them.
If “only” persons with xxx qualifications have the right to vote by law and new measures get implemented that make it impossible to vote for certain people that fit those qualifications, then … nothing. That’s the difference between “every” and “only”. Changing the wording to “only” allows the state to legally pile on extra requirements and barriers.
Examples of groups of people that I’ve seen disenfranchised by state actions: Prisoners, felons who have done their time, college students, minorities, inner city people, military abroad. Some of these news articles will have been attempts that were not (yet) successful.
I haven’t read the full wiki article, but I expect those examples to be in here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_United_States
Unfortunately SCOTUS gutted the power of the federal government to enforce those guarantees based on the old provisions + republicans filibustered the democrat bill that was meant to address that. It’s as if the republicans have a plan.
https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/what-does-the-constitution-say-about-the-right-to-vote/
“The ability of the federal government to protect voting rights, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities, has been jeopardized both by recent Supreme Court rulings and the failure of Congress to enact new voting rights legislation.”
“With the federal government and the Supreme Court unlikely to protect voting rights in a substantial way in the near future, it’s up to the states to take action to protect voting.”
And now there’s a state changing the law so that they can more easily disenfranchise voters of their chosing. Imo this is no coincidence.
I would ask the window system producers for contractors near you, try: https://www.schueco.com/nl/particulieren/raamsystemen And/or https://www.reynaers.nl/
Hey, thanks for sticking up for me. Noone else seems to dare go against the bandwagon.
Personally I don’t get people, I provide sources and am open to alternate viewpoints, but most people just want to blindly believe whatever last video they watched unfortunately.
Well, I hate to disappoint you, but curtains work for energy savings. If you are open to changing your mind, here’s an explanation: https://www.thermal-engineering.org/thermal-curtains-material-home-energy-saving/
You always want glass coatings on outside window glass, no matter the climate. Depending on where you live, you want different coatings obviously, but coatings are essential in modern glass panes.
And since you seem to be entirely unaware of what already exists in the construction industry, here’s another article with a bit more explanation: https://en.aaglas.nl/producten/warmtewerend-glas. A low zta will stop a good portion of the summer sun, while a high lta will still allow through a lot of light from low angles (including from the weak winter sun). Select glass that has a high lta/zta factor and you have glass that is good both in winter and in summer in northern Europe. The Netherlands is at lattitude of about 52°, while most Canadians live a few degrees south of that, so these same solutions would work there as well.
I’m afraid to admit that I have not, will do it this evening but until then I will remain ignorant.
Edit: Just skimmed through it because I couldn’t wait and the video did not change my opinion at all.
The presenter seems to be unaware that there exist glasses which reflect different amounts of light depending on the angle. Up north, where he lives, the angle of the sun is much lower in winter than in summer. There exists glass that is designed for that.
A large awning to create extra seasonal living space outside, sure, those are still great. Small window awnings like ik the thumbnail picture, definitely not, those are a waste of time and money.
I was also disappointed by how dismissive the presenter was of scientifically based findings that did not align with his feelings. Curtains work great.
These things are technologically obsolete imo. The same result can be achieved with glass coatings, without requiring the extra work to install/maintain or replace these appendages.
These awnings work against losing heat to the night sky, the same effect of which can be achieved with anti emissive coatings that reflect heat radiation back inside.
The awnings also work against the sun when it’s high in the sky, for which there are now anti solar coatings which will reflect more light from certain angles.
Nostalgia is nice, but the modern solution is easier + cheaper to install and maintain.
A tldr image: https://www.agc-glass.eu/sites/default/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/2024-05/diagram-coatings leaflet.JPG?itok=s97bN-aV
Longer promotional article: https://www.agc-glass.eu/en/sustainability/glass-sustainable-architecture/energy-saving-glass
Episode 3 of season 6 is such an outlier. Too much romance for the Simpsons audience apparently.
I’m going to second this: a few pairs of Crocs, each placed at a strategic exit and going outside for a few minutes is no inconvenience at all anymore. For anything that takes longer than that, I put on suitable footwear for whatever I’ll be doing.
There are a silly amount of very different cuts of this film. I watched the UK tv cut (I think at least) years ago on film4, I finished it and I liked it. I didn’t understand where the online ridicule came from. Sure it was campy, but not anymore than other 80’s fantasy movies like Time Bandits. The probable answer: I watched a good cut.
If you read how the USA theatrical release got butchered by the studio … It was a recipe for disaster. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0089469/alternateversions/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2814274
That’s the original scientific letter that all the other articles are based on. They fully explain their methodology and at first glance, it all seems to check it out. So yes, pregnancies due to rape really are that common, at least in the backward states of the USA.
Is it really a faux-pas? It probably depends on where you live and the people you live amongst. Where I live, it seems like only the extreme right (the successors of the people who helped the nazi’s genocide the Jews) + orthodox Jews support Israel unequivocally. Most others don’t see it as black and white and still consider Palestinians as humans who need hope and prospects, which they’re obviously not getting under Israeli occupation.
The majority of Palestinians in Palestine apparently support Hamas, but it’s likely that they would not be supporting Hamas if Israel had been acting in good faith and not been slowly (a lot faster now obviously, but they were going slowly for years) ethnically cleansing them from Palestine. It’s kinda a chicken and egg situation.
If Rabin had not been murdered by an extremist israeli in 1995, there might have been peace now in those lands, but instead Israel is now being lead by those extremists and they aren’t interested in peace or co-existence.
Coincidentally, there was a recent media event in my country event where a celebrity publicly displayed support for Palestinians.
She had this to say: “Raising a Palestinian flag does NOT mean that I support Hamas or that I hate Jews or that I am okay with innocent civilians - wherever they live - being killed. It means that I want all wars and all genocides to end.” https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/01/08/laura-tesoro-palestijnse-vlag/
Public reactions (in dutch): https://m.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240107_96484050 The minister Jan Jambon was in his youth a member of the local fascist party and is pretty vocal that he would like his current (more mainstream) party to collaborate in the future with that fascist party. So that he thinks that it is a “faux-pas” to express support for Palestinians, does not surprise me in the least.
Edited because of grammar.
Well yes, the fascist politicians are being performative as usual, but it’s the Washington hospital that filed in the Texas court, not Texas republicans. If some random loonies from across the continent where to slander and threaten me, then I would go to my local authorities/police/courts to try and put a stop to it. I would not go to loonietown myself to complain about the loonies, because I’d be afraid of finding even more loonies. So the part I don’t get, is why the Washington hospital had to/wanted to file their lawsuit in Texas instead of in Washington.
Why was the lawsuit filed in Texas and not in Washington State? The hospital is based in Seattle, the people coming for care received that care in Seattle, … Surely Washington state courts should have the final say.
I hope that you’ll be as fortunate as I was.
I knew something had changed when I was sitting in the living room one Sunday and realized that I could smell the food that I was making in the kitchen oven. I had not had that good a sense of smell since before I had had COVID.
The weekend after that, I did light work in the garden and I could work for hours without issue, while 2 weeks prior I had to stop after half an hour.
I did avoid any strenuous activities as long as I had long COVID, maybe this helped my recovery. I wasn’t going to go on a hiking trip or fight with bushes, if I couldn’t even do a half hour of light work without fainting. I could still do local walks, thanks to my country being as flat as a pancake.
One very big frustration I had, was the feeling of being perceived as an imposter. I was ill, but tests were unable to show anything wrong, as if it was all in my head. But now there’s definite scientific proof that long COVID really is a thing, even when traditional tests show nothing wrong with the patient.
That 10% in the article is people with long COVID, which is not necessarily debilitating. Just having a reduced sense of smell is a symptom of long COVID, but it’s not going to stop a runner from running. I tried looking for statistics and I found that in a USA survey, 26% of people with long COVID, reported significant activity limitations. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7232a3.htm
It’s also all uncharted territory: traditional tests can’t identify long covid and there are still breakthroughs being made to figure out what is actually going on with long COVID. It’ll be some time before it can actually be tested at scale and even if it can be tested, I doubt that this will be done. As the article suggests, it’ll probably be more convenient to try and sweep it under the rug, definitely cheaper.
For now all these statistics are based on external symptoms: people who were diagnosed with COVID (not everyone who had it, was diagnosed), who found that they had long lasting effects (before ending up in statistics, it had to be bad enough for them to seek help) of whom a part has very noticable negative effects (people who did not do much physical activities before, might not even be aware that they can no longer do the physical activities that they didn’t used to do), … So it’s error on top of error, a whole lot of unknowns. The percentages in the doomsday article could be accurate, but without the ability of testing, we’re not going to find out for a bit longer.
That you personally don’t know anyone who has long COVID, does not surprise me. It’s such a vague disease that it’s not a good talking subject, people just carry on as good as they can. Personally I only communicated my struggle with it to people who were affected by my change in behaviour: I cancelled walking trips and I wanted people to know that it was me, not them. And my garden was a shithole, which was also a me issue.
I’ve had long COVID symptons (reduced sense of smell, instantly tired, heart going on a gallop for no or not much reason) for 6 to 7 months after my COVID infection, after which point those symptons suddenly cleared up. At the start I did hospital visits to have my heart checked out and everything, but nothing wrong could be found. I have no trouble believing that some people will never recover.
Heavily tax buying and owning homes as investments. Also heavily tax vacant homes in regions with a housing shortage.
Basically regulate it so that prospective buyers who are buying a place to live in are significantly advantaged when trying to do so, while at the same time discouraging others from buying up those homes as investments.