If they're putting up barriers to selectively exclude certain voices, it becomes everyone's problem because the outcome of the election no longer represents the will of the people.
Even if 90% of the group that they're trying to suppress does get an ID, and 10% doesn't, it can be enough to swing elections, especially in a winner-takes-all system that's in place in most of the US.
In the EU everyone is likely to have an official ID card, so it's a non-issue.
In the US this is not the case, and the people who do have an ID or who are likely to know what to do to get an ID probably skew a certain way. So requiring voter ID is a way of voter suppression to discourage disenfranchised groups from voting.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it
My salary? I am a wage slave just like everybody else.
Anyway, you didn't address the main questions:
Do you think providing exclusive access to a house for the renter to live in is something that has no value?
This house didn't just happen to fall in my lap. I put 250k of my own money in over the course of 30 years (10 years to save for the down payment + 20 years of mortage payments). Money that I worked for, doing a job. It's literally the fruit of my labor. By what ungodly reasoning should I have to give that to you or anyone else for free?
It seems you are the one here who is not making any effort to be understanding.
Every single problem with current rent could be solved by ... [theoretical solutions]
Just because things could theoretically be handled differently doesn't make landlords "thieves" as the title claims.
I'm currently a home owner and not a landlord, but if I would become a landlord, it wouldn't be in my power to implement any of your solutions, leaving in the middle whether they have merit or not.
All I can do is try to live in the system that exists, and in that context there's nothing unethical about charging rent to provide someone exclusive access to a property that I worked 20 years for to pay off plus 10 years to save for the down payment. Like, I'm just a wage slave myself and there's literally over 250k of my own money in my house ... why should I have to give that away for free? Seems to me that trying to take the fruits of my labor (i.e. the house that I worked for) for free is the thievery here.
What service does the land speculator landlord provide to the tenant?
You think providing exclusive access to a house for the renter to live in is not something that has value?
Soon I will probably become a landlord, not because I want to but because it makes financial sense. My partner and I are pooling money to buy a place together so we can live together, she will sell her apartment and I will rent out my old apartment, which I bought with my own money and worked 20 years for to pay off. Are you suggesting I should just have to give the fruit of my 20 years of labor away to someone for free?
Exactly why I had four 1-series since 2008 (E82, E81, F20 pre-facelift, F20 facelift). Switched to a G20 3-series when the 1-series went FWD, and soon it will be all electrical and qualities like "fun", "light" and "simple" will be a thing of the past. We adapt and move on.
Perhaps even a bit later. My 2014 F20 BMW 1-series was still pretty great. The facelift model of the same car I had after that (2017 or so) is the first one that started to include things that annoyed me.
I'm going to say there was and it was around 2010. Like maybe 2005 until 2015.
The BMWs of the E90/E87 generation that I drove in those years are still the pinnacle of automotive achievement for me. They had all the things I needed and nothing that annoyed me. Anything after that started to include more and more annoying stuff.
"Protecting the children from harmful content and predators", "protecting people from terrorists and criminals", "protecting users from hackers" are all forms of security, and are all used as arguments to erode freedoms.
It all boils down to: just give up this bit of freedom so we can keep everyone safe.
ACID is really just an arbitrary set of requirements for databases that made sense way back in the day when things were much simpler. ACID starts to hold you back when you want to scale out, because to have consistency you have to wait for your transaction to percolate through all the nodes of your system, and it doesn't allow for things like a replicating node to be temporarily offline or lagging behind. Turns out though that not everything needs to be strictly ACID. For example, there are many cases where it doesn't matter that a reader node has stale data for a second or two.
The thing MongoDB does is that instead of being dogmatically ACID all the time it allows you to decide exactly how ACID your transactions and your reads need to be, through the writeConcern and readConcern parameters. If you want it to be completely ACID, you can, but it comes at a cost.
Traditionally, ACID is where relational databases shine.
Relational databases shine with ACID on single-node systems when they're not trying to solve the scale-out problem that MongoDB is trying to solve, but when they are trying to do that, they actually do much worse.
For example: most RDBMS systems have some kind of replication system, where you can replicate your transactions to one or more backup nodes either for failover or to use as a read-only node.
Now if you consider that whole system, replicas included, as "the database", none of them are ACID, and I don't know of any RDMBS-es that has mechanisms to automatically recover from a crashed primary without data loss, or that can handle the "split brain" problem.
The channel is not in danger of being deleted, not even close. They received a single copyright strike, which in principle already got reversed by youtube (though still pending a 10 day waiting period for the claimant to reply and file legal action). It takes 3 valid copyright strikes within a 90 day period for a channel to be deleted.
They're not angry because their channel is in danger of being deleted, they're angry because they got hit in the moneys, losing ad revenue on a video that probably cost quite a bit of money to produce. Because of how the algorithm works, they'll probably not recoup the lost views on that particular video, even when it's reinstated.
It's also not like abusive and frivolous copyright strikes are a new thing. They've been a byproduct of the safe harbor provisions (aka OCILLA ) in the DMCA for almost 3 decades now (DMCA was introduced in 1998), and the chilling effects on online speech and liberties have been well documented and covered to death by various publications over the years, but somehow GamersNexus only discovers it and starts to care when their bottom line is affected by it. I get that it's not cool, but I don't get why people should care about this particular instance of DMCA abuse, especially as it seems to be going as well for GamersNexus as a copyright strike can possibly go, given that Youtube already ruled in their favor.
To me it comes across as a hastily put together video to spring on their audience to whip up outrage and compensate for lost ad revenue. It's a tried and true tactic, if you don't have news, make the news. It seems to be working too: after one day this video already has more views than anything else they put out in the last 6 months, so it will probably make them more money than the taken down video would ever make. Good for them, but that doesn't mean that you can't see it for the sensationalist click bait non-story that it is.
Play in someone else's walled garden, and they may kick you out and not let you back in. It's not as if people haven't been warning against this since the beginning of youtube.
Sounds like those are uncomfortable questions being raised...