That seems a bit ironic?

> Grandma Sally isn't going to live forever. The house winds up on the open market in order to seek satisfaction of Grandma's debts

Not always, grandma can pass the home down to whoever. IIRC there are ways to do it without triggering a reevaluation on the original purchase price.

Pretty unbelievable, really. They get a free house and tax bills from decades ago. The whole thing is made to screw over future generations, and act like it’s all hunky dory.

The premise does not warrant this conclusion.

I also don’t buy 20K of property tax on a 500K home, that’s a 4% tax which seems unlikely in Chicago.

Something isn’t right. Poor financial planning maybe?

I mean… little drops of water make the ocean, so if the complaint is with the drop then yes. Doesn’t mean the ocean is poisoned by some of these droplets though.

Two things can be true at the same time - Facebook as a whole is untrustable but you can use Muse Glimmer from them without giving them this data.

> Because when you log in you don’t want to be logged out at (what, for you, will appear to be) a random time of the future.

> That’s a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist. Nobody considers not getting logged out randomly a problem.

Isn’t this contradictory? The double negatives are really throwing me for a loop. Regardless, it’s extremely common for you to be force-logged out of a session for any portal that has sensitive info.

You’re never logged into your bank forever, SSO logins expire. The ones that don’t expire are stuff like YouTube or Netflix, but only if you use it (length of refresh token validity). Checkbox for keeping a session valid is a legitimate solution and I’m grateful it exists. Why do you say it’s a problem that doesn’t exist, when you yourself said it does?

I do not understand your thesis.

> you could say that congress has delegated "judicial and legislative" powers to the executive, whose will is embodied in a democratically elected president.

Bullshit. No, you cannot say that. “The non-delegation doctrine is a constitutional principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to another branch of government or to private entities.”

You get two downvotes for lies, one for each post.

I thought that was the whole point of that Dodge vs Ford case which enshrined shareholder supremacy? I’m not saying that’s the best way or poor way to run a business, but the blanket application of this precedent seems sketch to me. But that means we need an admin that does trust busting too, so good luck with all that.

Why do they want it? What are some use cases that make sense?

You aren’t going to repeal the second amendment, so reasonable or not it’s a fact that everyone has to contend with. Do we all want guns? No. Do we all want AI? Also no.

> What we want is to ban bad, regardless of how it is achieved

No, we don’t want to ban bad. Banning doesn’t really work - the effort to reward ratio isn’t great. We want to regulate bad and see if we can minimize the damage it can do.

I’m not so sure, I’m convinced people would not bat an eye. Or at least I don’t expect any positive compliments, only neutral or negative.

Flip genders and most likely people say things like this. Somehow men are just expected to deal with this but if it’s directed at a woman it’s all bad.