This is ridiculously oversimplified, because there is no real market in housing. It is illegal to build in all of the places people want to buy. The purchase of housing by hedge funds isn't a problem on its own, it's simply a symptom of the bigger problem of supply restrictions.
The funds themselves say in their financials that they view housing as profitable because of the various restrictions on supply in every desirable city. They explicitly say that if those restrictions were lifted they would not be able to make money in that business and they would exit.
He's on the AI beat, if he is unaware that a chatbot will fabricate quotes and didn't verify them that is a level of reckless incompetence that warrants firing
The state of California can classify some driving under the influence cases as operating with "implied malice". Not sure it would qualify in this scenario, but there is precedent for arguing that reckless incompetence is malicious when it is done without regard for the consequences.
Some companies have enough of a track record that they should be nuked from orbit, and "Company bad" is all that is worth saying. Meta is one of those companies. Palantir is another. Not holding them accountable and acting as if we should continue engaging with their products is part of the reason we are rapidly sliding towards dystopia
I'm confused, wouldn't this be just using the power of the government to enforce short-sighted, tech-hostile regulations like "datacenters should not poison people"?
So he was willing to make a business deal with the country that executes gay people, as long as HE wasn't in danger? Legitimizing their regime is perfectly OK if it doesn't affect him? The fact that he was negotiating with them makes that incident look even worse for him, not Gawker
This is gross man. Abusive relationships are way more complicated than that, judging someone in this situation because you read one article about it is out of line
It's the article supplied. If you have another article that says anything different, then supply it. If you have further insight into this specific instance, give it.
It has nothing to do with reading another article and I have absolutely no insight into this instance and neither do you. You do not and cannot know what is going on in that woman's life to judge her like that, and it's really gross to try and do so.
Which is why I said I didn't understand and why I asked the questions. I made no judgement but you found it easy to judge me on even less information. How very Reddit of you
No, I do not. I literally said "I have absolutely no insight into this instance"
A woman claimed she was raped by her partner. She left that partner some time later. You questioned it because she didn't leave him immediately and left him after allegations of cheating, completely ignoring the complexity of being in an abusive relationship, and expressing skepticism of the woman for not immediately leaving him. That is really shameful and gross to do.
And even here you are expressing skepticism "Tell me what difficulty she had". You clearly are out of your depth here, clearly ignorant about the dynamics of abuse, and are saying some really nasty stuff about a woman you know nothing about, and now digging in your heels when it's pointed out. You have no place to question anything about this woman's relationship.
The funds themselves say in their financials that they view housing as profitable because of the various restrictions on supply in every desirable city. They explicitly say that if those restrictions were lifted they would not be able to make money in that business and they would exit.
reply