That’s very funny.

From context clues it seems like they were hosted on Lemmy which is why they are now limiting image hosting.

You know I’ve seen every other mainline Star Wars and several of the one-offs and TV shows but I never got around to this one and I haven’t really felt like I missed out.

I watched with my SO and googled it right after we finished it to see when Season 2 was coming, thinking it would be a joke “haha only 2 years to wait for the next season” and it had already been cancelled. Rough.

RIP ‘Night Sky’ with JK Simmons. What could have been.

Scalping isn’t the comparison though because 1, scalpers don’t reduce the total supply. Any scalper who refuses to sell a portion of their tickets, loses all the money they used to buy them, and the opportunity cost of selling them, and there’s no way it’s worth it for any given individual. The supply/demand differential they make money from is that the venues only have a certain number of seats.

Which brings me to 2, theres no equivalent of homebuilders in the scalper world. If some scalpers could generate new seats at the venue for roughly the cost they pay the venue for tickets, supply and demand would figure themselves out pretty quick.

Hard disagree on the last part there. For one, homebuilders again. Their business model is to build the houses and then sell them, if they joined the “sell houses slower” cartel it just means they earn less profit.

But really the whole idea you’re laying out, the math only works if everyone works together, so it becomes a prisoners dilemma. Because say there’s 20 companies slowing down house sales to maximize profit, there can always be a 21st who gets the benefit of the restricted supply from the 20, but they just sell as much as possible and become the most profitable of all. Maybe it’s in everyone’s interest to restrict supply, but it’s in any given company’s interest to sell as much as possible. So it has to be an as of yet unknown cartel of every home seller in the country and there’s just too many of them to have both: Either it includes everyone or it’s secret.

I don’t really understand the market failure happening with such a long term housing shortage. By definition there is excess demand for housing right? So it should make economic sense to build more.

When I ask people always say conspiratorial stuff like “they” maximize profit by keeping housing low but even if there was a conspiracy there should be individuals who are not part of the conspiracy who would profit from going against it.

So it has to be either regulatory or funding based, I think. But I don’t know of any recent regulations that would cause this nationwide, “zoning” is probably part of it but there was no one timeline for that, it’s super local. And funding has been free for a decade and a half and homebuilding has still been slow.

I don’t get it.

I mean folders internal to the computer. Sure they would look for valuables anywhere but where I’m having trouble is the leap from stealing the computer to looking through the contents of the computer.

Either they would have to stay in the house and go through things, or set it up somewhere else and risk an anti-theft GPS triggering, and what is the motive? What could they find on some randos file folders? Cleanest thing to do is just immediately wipe the computer and sell it.

Maybe I’m being a spoil sport but this seems like a cover to me. Like maybe it was “a burgler” but that person was someone’s older brother who knew what they were going to find.

I just don’t see the circumstances for a random burglar to be snooping through folders close enough to find the presumably relatively hidden items they’d need to find, let alone that happening alongside the low odds an actual burglar would risk their own security to do the right thing.

Corporations bought 15% of homes sold in that quarter, they don’t own 15% of the homes. The total owned is much less, I think it’s 2% combined. But regardless, that does not impact HOUSING, it impacts home buying. Separate issue.

If 100 people need somewhere to live, and there are 98 houses, 2 people will not have housing. Now imagine a corporation buys 10 houses and rents them out to 10 of the people. Still exactly 2 people without housing. I care more about helping the people who do not have places to live.

I don’t care if companies own houses, they rent out those houses so the amount of housing is still increasing.

Same for “those outside the country” unless you mean like billionaires buying housing units and not living in them and not renting them out, but that is not a big enough part of the market to matter.

Homelessness is a housing affordability issue. Build more housing, fix ya zoning, make unemployment and Medicaid easier to get.

There’s a population with long term homelessness due to mental health issues and we should be trying to help them too, but to the extent the issue is increasing it’s due to marginal situations like someone losing their job or having a medical emergency.