I’m a lot of things, but not a Velociraptor
Since they installed chargers at my workplace roughly one year ago, I have stopped exactly 3 times to charge in a public charger:
First was when we had an issue with chargers the day before I was going on a 2 weeks holiday out of town.
Second was when I arrived to my holiday destination.
Third was the day we were going back home from the holiday destination after two weeks.
That’s about it in a whole year.
Can’t say if this post is full of shit or not because it’s been years now since the last time I saw an ad.
Mainstream media? Sure. Leave the mainstream world and connect with indies of every kind of art. You’ll discover a whole new world.
Valve is the biggest pc gaming storefront. Could they just comply and verify you in the easiest way? Certainly. But how is that going to change anything with that shitty law? In fact, by verifying you “easily”, it becomes an issue for Valve itself because in case someone breaks in and steal your data from them, who are you going to blame? The government that made the stupid law? No, probably the middle man: Valve.
Instead, they decided to go through the tough path: Piss everyone and make it an issue for everyone in the chain. The gamer gets angry because they can’t verify without a card. The dev gets angry because they see piracy rise and when they both point at Valve, Valve can just say: Hey, it’s not my fault, ask whoever is doing this stupid law to go back.
Change often comes from hardship, and there’s very few collectives more complacent than gamers; the only way to make them move in any way is inconveniencing them enough. This aims to do that.
Idiot writer doesn’t understand that the point of valve’s method is to piss customers so they act against a law that only seeks surveillance and control. Microslop complying with it that easily (for now) should tell you a lot about them and about their position in this situation.
You can see the patient is not Usian because they use the 24h format and they understand it.
Pro is for mobile. Pro Max for tablet.
“Flawed intelligence” what a weird way of saying “People dumb as fucking rocks in charge”.
Hmm… smells like a nice, warm, SCAM.
Don’t talk to me until you’ve grabbed a product in the supermarket that has the “Open here” text and, instead of opening there, you’ve opened it AT HOME, you coward.
To be fair, if you look at sugar contents, even the “healthy” fruit juices are filled with them. In fact, many argue that a fruit juice is not as healthy as they tell us because while you get some of the good nutrients of fruit in them (when they are 100% and not from concentrate), you also get a huge intake of sugar that goes quickly into your blood. When you eat fruit, you take the same amount of sugar but you need to digest the fruit first, making it slower to absorb. It’s a good practice to drink a fruit juice accompanied by something to eat so you don’t get the sugar rush.
Moving from Venice to Florence as the city to discuss, what would keep the city center for the locals if tourism wasn’t the main driver passing people out?
I’m not moving the city to discuss, I spoke of both cities as an example of overtourism. I simply used Florence in later examples because I know the city better than Venice.
We’re seeing a lot of cities seeing an influx of “expats” seeking lower cost of living areas to work from. Florence has a beautiful city center with a nearby high speed rail train station and decent airport connections. There wouldn’t be anything stopping the locals from getting pushed out by digital nomads and trust fund kids who want a year abroad.
You still don’t understand how different is to have someone living in a city for a year and someone living in a city for a few days? The scenario you are painting is way better than the overtourism because someone living in a city for a year still needs a supermarket. A tourist doesn’t. Just to name an example.
Yes, over tourism is what is currently changing the city, but I’m not sure that the same thing wouldn’t happen anyway, but with the rich guests staying for a few years instead of a few weeks.
Someone living for a few years in a city needs services that a tourist visiting for a couple days doesn’t. And, most important, keeps rent available and at a affordable prices. Someone living for a whole year will occupy a house for the whole year, so they’ll get a normal rent. That means the rest of renters will have to keep prices the same. Also, someone living for a year there, will need to declare residence if they want to use services like, for example, doctors. That also means they’ll have to pay taxes which, in turn, are used to improve the city. A tourist does nothing of that. And since 2-days rentals are so popular, nobody will rent their house to someone living a year when in a couple of months of BnB they’ll make the same money; driving most of them out of the long-term rental and making the few remaining raise prices absurdly.
On top of that, there’s the question of the general degradation for the city that overtourism brings. Pickpocketers, scammers… they are all lured by tourists, so the more tourists, the more of these. I know, I was here before the boom, and things weren’t nearly as bad. Overtourism also bring a category of tourist that’s rarely careful or considerate with both the place and the locals because for them it’s all a theme park and, since they come for just a couple of days, they don’t even care about littering or about local customs…
If you read my comments, I said I’m against overtourism, because with hotels you can control the amount of tourism a city gets. I’m not against tourism nor against hotels. I’m against BnB’s.
And about what would happen? I don’t know, we’d get to see cities like they were 15 years ago? I’ve seen Florence before the BnB boom. It was a lively town, the city centre was inhabited by locals and there was tourism, but streets were lively and full of people that lived there. The city wasn’t dying, if anything, it was alive!
Now, if you go to the city centre, it’s just a theme park for tourists, barely any locals live there and the few that do, if you talk with them, they hate it. Most of their residents have moved to other places because their city is not welcoming anymore.
Overtourism only benefits rich people who end up hoarding houses and big chains who end up buying all shops to open their shitty stores. That’s it. To be fair, it doesn’t even benefit tourists because who the hell enjoys a 3 hours queue to see the Brunelleschi dome? I want to go to a city to see its shops, its restaurants, its unique attractions, not to see the uptenth McDonalds, or another FiveGuys, or the new Starbucks.
And no, stagnation only comes if you focus your city on tourism and nothing else, but if you focus on other things, like industry (and I can assure you Tuscany has a lot of that), you don’t have to see cities dying. What you’ll see is rich people not coming to screw around.
I never said I didn’t want tourism. I specifically talked about overtourism. I’m not against tourism, I’m agaisnt having BnB’s by the thousands in a city as small as Florence.
I’m talking about living in an appartment block where there is a BnB (or three). I talk about trying to rent a house to live there when nobody will rent you because they make in a week of tourist rentals more than they make in a month or two of normal rental. Tourism is fine. Overtourism kills cities.
I recommend you to visit Florence or Venice. To name a couple cities in which to see the effects of overtourism.
They are theme parks for tourists nowadays. If you see the cities some years ago and now, you see how they are a shadow of what they were. Tons of traditional shops closed to be bought by shitty chains that sell the typical stuff you see everywhere else. Restaurants closed so a mcdonald could open, traditional shops closed so a zara could open… and so on.
Is it really worth all the effort of shipping that for 1€? I mean, it’s free money but… aren’t you going to spend more just in the box or whatever you’ll use to ship them?
Overtourism kills the cities tho. Sure, you get tourism money, but people leave the cities because they can’t live on them, so shops close and get bought by multinationals to make chain stores (and pay way less in taxes than what would pay a traditional store). It also causes the city to degrade in terms of security and livability.
It’s good in the short term, but awful in the long term.
That’s my point. You don’t need 3 houses, let alone 50. With the first house you don’t pay taxes on property (as it’s fair because you live there). With the second you should pay the normal tax. The third one should be 10x the normal tax. 4th 100x the normal tax, and so on. Owning more than 2 houses should be expensive AF to discourage hoarders.
There’s problems with illegal bnb’s everywhere; because it’s really hard to detect them as they are basically private houses with no difference from a non airbnb house.
Hence why I say we should exponentially tax houses after the second one. Owning a second house shouldn’t be a problem because I think we should be able to own a house where we like to spend our holidays if we decide to. Owning 3 or more is not needed and should be heavily taxed.
Not OP but my thoughts are that maybe if they get back with their stats they won’t grind all the way back to their original stats potentially worsening the addiction?