Also you're unlikely to see the owner, they certainly won't be inside with you, you can leave any time, you're likely to be with others, and they can't change your location.
Contrast that with an intoxicated young woman climbing alone into a stranger's car where he has a lot of control - including being able to lock the doors or take her to a remote/unfamiliar location. Even with all the checks and measures in place, assaults are not uncommon; I'm not familiar with any AirBnB type assaults (far more frequently, it's the guests victimising the owner via property damage).
Not true, we once stayed in Pisa, Italy, and the (absolutely messy) appartment was shared with the host and her son. It was quite awkward at times but we still enjoyed the stay
Many years back I stayed in Melbourne, Australia with a lovely Chinese speaking elderly couple. They made me lunch, I have no idea what it was but it was delicious! I think it was much more common to rent an extra room back when Airbnb was relatively new.
My best Airbnb experience was my first one 4 years ago, when with a partner I booked a room in a house with the owner living in. We had a tremendous time, we had bbq one night together, it was an enjoyable not planned semi-communal experience.
Nowadays, the experience Airbnb offers is mostly that of a poorly managed hotel that has properties all over the world. It can be worthwhile when traveling in groups, but otherwise I tend to prefer hotels.
Still very common. My parents are AirBnB "super hosts" and they live in the basement due to regulatory requirements that are common in pricey American cities.
Recently? No, services have always been at risk for out groups. It was only a few decades ago that minority and lgbtq folks could lose access to services.
Except now it's not normal people, it's hate groups that are being pushed out. This seems like a material change for the better.
If you think this is a recent phenomena or if you think it's somehow only being aimed one way, I suggest you read a bit more American history.
There are an awful lot of "normal people" who want an ethnically homogeneous, harmonious home for their children, while those advocating abortion, transsexuality, homosexuality, childhood sex education, etc are the epitome of evil "hate groups".
Implying that this is a black-and-white issue or that the current status is objectively superior is disingenuous or ignorant.
Fifty years ago it would have been unthinkable that the fringe groups being violently censored and oppressed would now be in power. Where might we be fifty years from now...
The parent is a response to the GP calling out Ackman as a “white guy”.
This white-bashing has become so pervasive and accepted that people don’t even notice it anymore. I’m a brown, recent immigrant so probably more likely to notice.
Substitute any other group in place of “white guy” and it’s a major faux pas. The double standard is mind-boggling.
I honestly had to look it up, because I always thought "Jewish" referred to religion (and there still seems to be questions of whether it still can refer to race or not these days).
Regardless, looking at his picture, anyone could be forgiven for assuming he is "White".
I guess I'll leave out any semblance of race in my "rich guys" comments, lest I upset the snowflakes.
Maybe it's just a series of clickbait junk targeting popular apps so that the many happy users of those apps give him plenty of interactions. I bet he's watching the metrics right now.
The fact that Telegram isn't enthusiastically censoring everyone who even looks like they might have the wrong opinion is what makes it such a unique treasure. Feature, not bug.
Also their software is literally just better. Proper multidevice and autosync, better performance / UI, easier to customize, more features (even too much in my opinion), no phone number required, and and and
It's not 1% of them though. It's 0%. None of them are getting off the couch to kill anyone because their video game release is delayed.
It's an expression of frustration, and we all know that. Unfortunately in today's world, feeling threatened is socially valuable so they're simply playing on that. It says more to me about the disingenuity and/or weakness of the "victim" than anything else.
It's invaluable if you are involved in grey/black market trade. I was briefly involved in a legal-yet-taboo industry years ago, and being able to instantly receive private payments from people on the other side of the world without permission from anyone (indeed, while payment processors were limiting and closing my accounts) was phenomenal. It made sense then.
In fact I became a bit of a Bitcoin evangelist in my circles, especially as it aligned with my then-libertarian worldview. (However, the questionable leadership of the core Bitcoin fork has mostly eroded that enthusiasm over time.)
Now, as a regular taxpayer, Bitcoin makes no sense to me either. And I say that as a fortunate person with a significant stake, and a retirement fund increasingly grateful to all the dumb money being poured into it.
Its popularity and exchange rate is not a function of its utility, but rather an indication of a disillusioned and frustrated middle class looking anywhere for financial relief. Cryptocurrency is lottery tickets for people who consider themselves too clever to buy lottery tickets. (Especially all of the new, more volatile cryptocurrencies popping up each day.) Governments would be well-advised not to deprive their taxpayers of this distracting fantasy.
You'll know when you need it. Until then, if you want to take a gamble at timing your exit better than the next guy, thanks very much.
My respect to the author for this careful and courageous article. Writing about the problems affecting working class white men in today's climate might warrant censure in some circles.
To the matter at hand, one of my concerns is that the Sackler family will enjoy long, peaceful lives. I hope justice intervenes.
I agree with you about how taboo it is among a certain type of journalist to write about the considerable problems of poor and working class whites.
But in light of your comment about the Sackler family, I'll add another opinion that is unpopular these days: people with severe chronic pain deserve appropriate treatment. And they shouldn't be denied access to that treatment (like they are now) because addicts and corrupt doctors misused the product. Addicts deserve sympathy and compassionate treatment, but we shouldn't ban an entire class of useful medications because of the addicts' misuse (eg, we don't ban cars because some people drive drunk).
If you've never known serious chronic pain, all I can tell you is that it's a different world than the one I knew before I got sick.
You've got to be kidding me. I don't think I've ever seen such a sudden wave of compassion for the victims of drug addiction in the US before the recent opioid epidemic - my jaw was on the floor seeing the number of politicians, including conservative ones, who started embracing the language of "sickness" rather than "moral failure" for drug addiction at this time. Compare and contrast the reportage on the crack epidemic.
To be clear, I'm not calling for a return to the bad old days, but it's in incredibly poor taste to pretend that there's some kind of conspiracy against "working class white men". Sure, we can weasel out with "in some circles" - I'm sure there's some nutter somewhere who thinks somehow this is all just desserts for being white or voting for Trump, etc. But that's a fringe viewpoint.
re Sackler family, although I wish them long, peaceful lives, I would like a considerable portion of those long, peaceful lives to be spent in some sort of Federal facility.
The risks far outweigh the rewards. We're deliberately injecting ourselves with foreign genetic material that hijacks our cells' machinery to produce viral proteins by design. For my consent, I don't have anywhere near enough faith yet in the people hastily developing such technology, their employers striving to be first to market, or the bureaucrats desperate to give their electorates the impression that they have everything under control.
Maybe if I lived in a large, diverse city, I would be forced to consider it (I would far more likely move my family somewhere safer). But where I am fortunate to live, it makes absolutely no sense.
I agree. Let's not inject people with experimental vaccines rushed to market under significant political pressure. Let's not pressure strangers' decisions either way.
Far more money in this career path. I've made more some days writing junk code than I ever made in a year in a lab. It's easy to see why some scientists might be incentivised by external factors...
> Let's not inject people with experimental vaccines rushed to market under significant political pressure.
I'm less worried about political pressure, and more worried about the very real pressure being applied by the virus. There have been tests which have been safe thus far, and in my opinion there is less risk in moving forward with testing and distribution of the vaccines then not doing so.
> Let's not pressure strangers' decisions either way.
I'm of mixed feelings on this, and my overall opinion is that it depends on who all is able to take the vaccine.
If there are few restrictions, maybe this would be okay. However, if there are enough restrictions that there will be a sizable number of people who cannot take it, we need to get as many as possible out to try to protect them.
[Edit: This is referring to legal pressure. I am of the opinion that it is not unreasonable to encourage others to take vaccines if they are able.]
> Far more money in this career path. I've made more some days writing junk code than I ever made in a year in a lab. It's easy to see why some scientists might be incentivised by external factors...
First of all, I'd like to apologize for my ad hominem attack earlier. That was uncalled for.
Second, I find it hard to believe that scientists would be pushed to do something actually dangerous on this sort of scale, and like I said earlier, I find the idea of not combating the virus more dangerous then moving forward as quickly with vaccines as can be safely done. However, it's quite possible that I just have too much faith left in humanity.
There's a clever little meme floating about showing a perfectly normal, happy, healthy, unmasked family with the caption "conspiracy theorists" and then in the adjacent panel a visibly paranoid person with a mask and face shield captioned "normal person".
Back in the day, pre-2020, conspiracy theorists were characterized as tending to avoid human contact and social interactions because they couldn't trust who was in on the conspiracy and happy families were characterized as normal people because there were a lot of them.
The meme highlights the big change in 2020 in which most people have accepted the reality of the Covid-19 pandemic and seek to reduce transmission risk by wearing a mask, avoiding close human contact and socially interactions. People that are not taking these precautions are justifying their actions to not wear masks by claiming that there is a conspiracy and that Covid-19 is all made up. Because they are not socially distancing or wearing masks they look like pre-2020 normal people, at least until they end up in the ICU.
Being on the periphery of groups you'd likely describe as "conspiracy theorists", practically all of this is strawmanning.
This has become more of a political issue than a scientific issue. I saw a video of a doctor(?) streaming a video alone in his own home in Germany, when armed police stormed his home and arrested him for objecting to the narrative. That's not science. Anyway, can we really blame the common man for distrusting "science" when so much of it has become a shallow tool for political/social activism in recent years?
Nobody is refusing vaccines without reason. That you think it is without reason is either disingenuous or uninformed. And I'd add that the idea that people should accept an injection simply because they can't present a satisfactory reason for refusal is pernicious. The burden is not on them.
There are some who believe in wide scale fraud without evidence, I suppose, but that's a small minority. Most are simply unsatisfied by the evidence in favour, and sensibly don't take the prospect of a mysterious injection lightly. Regardless, I would argue there are far more people who believe in large scale competent benevolence with no evidence (or even evidence to the contrary).
> Being on the periphery of groups you'd likely describe as "conspiracy theorists" (...)
There's no need for so many weasel words.
You are talking about a group which insists in spreading theories about how a phenomenon is supposed to be the result of a major conspiracy, and thus insist that the phenomenon does not exist at all.
Amazing to see you get so many downvotes for this post. The modern conception of "conspiracy theory" really is just nothing more than a cudgel, a rhetorical trick to deflect sensible questions posed of official narratives and procedures by putting them in a bucket with off-the-wall absurdities.
Contrast that with an intoxicated young woman climbing alone into a stranger's car where he has a lot of control - including being able to lock the doors or take her to a remote/unfamiliar location. Even with all the checks and measures in place, assaults are not uncommon; I'm not familiar with any AirBnB type assaults (far more frequently, it's the guests victimising the owner via property damage).