I’m going to run this in a hannah Montana linux vm, boot a live disc, then try and recover.

Linux puzzle edition

Sorry I’m a bit late, and it seems you’ve chosen endeavor (good choice), but I’ll still give you some suggestions.

First off on endeavor, it’s essentially just a graphical, easier arch installer so if you’re having issues and can’t find anything endeavour specific anything arch linux will work the same. The arch wiki os a great resource for anything.

Secondarily, I can suggest opensuse tumbleweed, or fedora. Both are more stable while being very up to date. Arch, and endeavor, will usually be the first distro to see an issue that misses testing. These two distros are just a bit behind arch but still very quick to update. Tumbleweed is also pretty bare bones too, after I installed everything I needed for a normal work instal it was about 6.7gb. Great distro, terrible logo.

To finish off I am sorry about manjaro. It does look great, it’s got a nice color scheme, and plasma by default is wonderful to see. That can be gotten pretty easily on any distro though. When you install endeavour you can select kde plasma. It’s also default on tumbleweed, and you can get a plasma spin for fedora.

Wish you the best in your journey, I’m sorry it’s off to a bit of a rough start

deleted by creator

You are misrepresenting my points, and the anger you ascribe to me is odd, as the only person representing this behavior is you. You insult me, you misrepresent my points, you say I’m defined by my aparent hatred. This is strange behavior only suited to getting your “enemy” to shut up and in no way constructive nor condusive to a reasonable conversation.

Firstly, my issue is that they don’t warn about the dangers of the aur properly. Not that they promote it at all. If you read my statement I am clear. The aur is very useful, though dangerous. Also, on manjaro, version mismatch is likely to happen as the aur is built for arch and arch is two weeks ahead. You however pretend my point to be some entirely different thing in order to get you epic own.

Next, on the aur ‘ddosing’, what do I not understand? The first time, ok, that’s reasonable we all make mistakes. They did it again though in the same way. Nothing was done on their end to stop this from happening. Something we will see continually as they just don’t stop making weird, unnecessary mistakes.

As for me being Inigo Montoya, I actually am for your information. Manjaro killed my daddy-dom while I was sucking him off and for that I cannot forgive the company.

This hatred you fantasize about does not come from me. Calm down and maybe try actually talking to people instead of trying to “own” them, or to simply “destroy the anti-manjarites”

Edit: I see in the other post you did the same. Ignore what people kindly talking about their issues with manjaro say responding with hateful comments pretending they were the real issue. This is a continual issue with you

I would absolutely love it if manjaro was a reasonable choice. It was my first pick too. Their continual incompetence is what makes me wary of the company. I doubt you want a conversation as you’re quick to paint me in this light but I do expand here on my major reasons:

https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12137275

Some of this stuff happened only a few years ago. The same people are still running this company. I have no reason to think they’ve changed.

If you just want “arch made easy” I would suggest endeavorOs (best wallpapers hands down) or arco linux.

I love the idea of manjaro and sincerely hope that either a, they get their shit together (which is preffered), or b, a new manjaro like distro comes into existance.

The two week delay along with the calamari installer, and default plasma desktop give me a half chub already thinking about it. I’d be full send for it if the devs were competent

absolutely, thank you for asking

Manjaro has been continuously destructivte to the open source ecosystem it utilizes and it’s users through continual incompetence.

Manjaro and it’s staff often suggested to users that they use “pacman -Syyu” by default to update, which ignores caching to get a reloaded database. This puts a heavier load on the volunteers hosting the repos.

Manjaro made a campaign stating that “Manjaro works on the m1 apple macbook!” Shipping a random kernal from asahi linux which did not work at all. The project was nowhere near ready at the time and could never boot. This wasn’t the latest build either, just some random build. This build could have easily broken users macbooks.

Back to the asahi, when it did work they pushed an update to the kernal that broke half the users gui. This by updating a library which was documented to break in this manner. It broke all x11 instances showing they didn’t even run it to ensure it worked. No benefit existed from updating either more was it stated to be the goal of their patch. The reason it wasn’t checked by the devs is due to the fact the patch came from the lead arm dev of manjaro. This man should know better.

On the funding of manjaro, a company, things have been a little funky. After a spat between their treasurer and leader of the project the treasurer either left or was removed. Now, what happened is blurry, but now the sole person in charge of money is that leader who has never appointed a new treasurer as they stated they would. Atleast since last I checked. If the previous treasurer is right this person was utilizing development funds to acquire a powerful gaming laptop. Something which is directly against the stated purposes this company may use money, and the responsibility of a treasurer to deny.

They let their ssl run out 5 times. 5 times. I am a web dev, this shouldn’t happen once. One can automatically renew it. This shows their continual incompetence. The first time, they suggested users set back their clocks so it would stop complaining.

Manjaro ddosed the aur twice using their tool pamac. Both in the same manner showing once it had happened nothing changed to ensure it couldn’t twice. This was not malice of course, just an mistake twice made.

Back to the aur, though many will never have an issue as they only use it for general programs they don’t hold it back that two week period so version mismatches can break that which is installed from the aur.

Still on the aur, the ability to enable it is right next to flat packs and snaps in pamac. Both are relatively safe, unlike the aur. They do not properly warn users about the aur. I’ll admit this to be a lesser thing, but anyone using the aur should know it’s faults. It’s just a list of scripts which your pc will run to install a package that’ll auto update to the next version of a script when updating. This means, basically anything can be put inside there. By design too this is rarely maintained by the devs of a project. One issue which came up, the cemu emulator a very commonly used package had to calls to an IP logger alongside a list of people who can “go fuck themselves”. If you let this update without reading it you can recieve malicious updates. When malware exists and propagates on linux the aur is the first place it’ll go. You need to be able to read the scripts and do so each update . The air is a very useful tool but a dangerous one.

There’s more out there but I’m going to leave it here. Sorry for the rambling nature, but I’ a bit tired right now

Manjaro damaging it’s image wouldn’t be a new thing. That’s mostly dust at this point. No though, as others have explained this isn’t an issue, currently

That’s actually a really interesting idea. Windows even does something, or at a point did something, similar with system updates.

Peer to peer packages would have some privacy, and potential security issues of course but I like the thought

Wayland is a display protocall. What does that mean? Well, it describes how a program on linux tha displays graphics to a user should work. Examples of programs which do this include kwin, mutter, and sway. It’s why you see stuff on your monitor and why when you open an app, it’s in a window, which can be moved.

All that along with a good amount of supplementary tools, makes up wayland.

Currently we are transitioning from a 40 year old protocal called X11 which has many issues and few people willing to work on. Wayland offers a codebase without the spaghetti, more security, easier feature development, and to a point backwards compatibility.

This led to mass starvation as the workers no longer could feed themselves and no industry replaced the lost work. The textiles produced were of lower quality too, and sold for less which harmed the local economy leading to a rise in food prices along with the lower wages. Since the vast majority of arable land was used for cotton too no local food could lower the prices. Many people died as the luddites predicted.

There was mass starvation

They were right. This is not “anti-automation” this is against lower wages, mass unemployment, and an economic decrease. The automation was the cause of this, yes, but the concept of automation was not the issue. The issue was it’s use here.

If the workers were provided an alternative job, if there was some plan to avoid starvation, and if the textiles were of a reasonable quality then there would be no issue.

History proved the luddites correct

Don’t know about gnomes default file manager, but dolphin has this ability. You’ll have to install the addons and enable it in the context menu however.

To repeat others opinion though, I haven’t actually needed this feature outside of very specific situations (that I create myself). Linux operates a bit different and shouldn’t need this for anything outside of some poorly made, or potentially malicious apps and scripts. I agree though it’s still nice to have the option

Hello [XMunk], we’d like to thank you for your time here at this company and we understand this may come as a surprise but due to the current corporate ‘right sizing’ the company is undertaking we are sad to inform you of the cessation of your responsibilities. We wish you the best in your future endeavours and hope in the future you may rejoin our family. Due to internal performance reviews we understand that you are not eligable for severance benefits, but if you sign the attached forms we will be happy to help you out in receiving your Vacation pay.

Our best, BookBrokeCorp

Book 2: Big Boss Casamio

But what are someone else’s incentives? What if there are two big property owners in town? Then they gain something when they get more of the town’s population living in their houses: a higher portion of that housing demand becomes cash to them. That’s an incentive to build new housing.

This is correct, but not incentive to build. This is incentive to get more people living in ‘your’ housing. Other incentives exist to entice people into your housing and to keep them there. Lets say, if you refer others, you get a portion of the profit. On top of this, agreements which force them to stay in your housing for a period of time.

Yes, ALL housing’s earning potential drops, but you get 100% of the new property and only lose say 50% of the existing housing value to dilution.

Ok, so you have 1000 houses out there, and build new ones. These ten you gain more money on while losing half the value on you current 1000. This is not economical, you lose more than you gain without increasing demand only increasing supply. You’d have to always make more houses than you currently have (or at least enough to outweigh the decrease in value) which is very risky, and takes a very large amount of upright money and time until you have the ability to sell

Housing also takes time to make and has a massive cost associated. This is riskier than buying a new home and takes a lot more time meanwhile you aren’t making money.

What if neither make new houses and increase prices anyway? Sure, neither get a larger proportion of the money made, but both make more money.

Lets skip forward to the 100 player situation,. If they make more housing that takes more time, and if it fails, the market for that home decreases before they can get it on the market, or they guessed wrong in the value of a new house in that location, they get less money than those simply increasing their prices. Those who simply increase their prices get more profit, invest back into the market more, and gain a larger share.

They are more flexible too. If the market goes down, they can sell, the builders cannot. If, lets say, the local school announces they’re shutting down the builder has spent quite allot building in an area that is now less valuable. The non-builder simply sells before the school shuts down, and buys where the new ones being built. The builder still must build their house, or take a loss.

All this means, with time, those taking the safer, more flexible bet of not building and not improving get a larger share of the market as they make money more consistently and can respond to issues quicker.

One more thing, what if people build, but then still increase prices like the others do? They get more money, and more share of the market. Sure, supply increases, but so does the price. If people need housing, which they do, they will pay the increased price.

I will state I agree with a mostly free, market based economy. However market economics fail with goods that people require. Demand cannot decrease, thus those with supply can price it however they please. Normally, a person can simply say I will no longer purchase this good, and demand decreases, but people need shelter to survive so this is not an option. In-elastic goods break supply demand economics

On top of this, no market actor wants the pricing to go down. That only loses them money, or potential money, with no gain for themselves. There is no incentive.

Sorry to drone on, but to restate, those new people who enter the market with cheaper housing will be out competed by those who keep prices high. They will have more money, they will buy those cheaper houses, they will sell them at their inflated prices. The new market actors will have less resources and can never become a large force even though most would prefer to buy from them. If an average non-investor does buy from them the house exits the market, as the owner is not trying to sell but is simply living there.

End of cassimos reign

I agree, and that’s a serious problem. Even the increase in quality without increase in number would be a problem, though slightly less. Only increase in number can bring prices down.

Well, there are other ways. You could regulate the sale of housing and force it to stay at inflation, or decrease. How will things be maintained or improve? Those who own and are using the housing will pay for it, as they currently are, and no profit will be needed. You may say you’d rather this not happen but it would decrease pricing, or stabilize it.

Incidentally, this steady increase in price is because of population increase, not property improvement. The improvement of properties isn’t pushing average pricing; only individual pricing up and the whole thing balances due to demand being finite. But the demand itself increases with population (I mean, with money in the system, and each person anywhere is going to be pushing a certain amount of cash toward housing, by necessity).

correct, it’s not because of improvement, because properties are not being improved. On population, though it is increasing so is available housing, and so are prices. We have many houses that remain empty and could house people that are not being used. They are up to code, they are in locations that are desirable, they are simply either priced too high or not sold/rented. This is a major issue in many cities. Sure, demand finite, but people will pay anything they can to survive and even if supply increases those with it can still charge the same price, or more, and people will still pay it. Those who decrease pricing with demand will have less money, and thus less market share.

Also, look at the places where population is decreasing. We still see housing prices increase there too

As the number of empty houses dwindles toward zero, the amount each person has to pay rises super fast. The result of supply and demand ratio shifts are nonlinear; population doesn’t have to double for the price of housing prices to double.

Correct. The number of empty, fully functional, fully legally tenable housing is increasing though, as are prices.

True. I think that happens because we subsidize that by using government force to slow the building of new housing. I think that the government is taking the profit away from those who work to make new construction happen, and is giving it to the people who simply own existing buildings.

There’s quite a lot of housing that remains vacant though, sixteen million homes to be exact. On top of this, public housing could easily fix the issue here.

I also don’t think that’s entirely a bad thing. If we have to suffer the existence of homelessness as a possibility in human life, in order to avoid some kind of Chicago fire scenario where shit safety planning led to 1/3 of the population dying, maybe it’s worth it. Anyway.

What if we can avoid both? If everyone was guaranteed housing, homelessness could be close to or equal to zero. This is not the conversation we’re having though, but it would fix the issue of housing being in-elastic

On rentals

Even if the bus driver makes way more than the house builder per paycheck, he’s going to be in a tough situation to have to pay the house builder’s income during the time it takes to build the house.

He has to anyway. The builders price to build the home is added to the cost of the home. The bus driver must, in the end, pay this to acquire the home. The only difference is that now he must also pay the landlord a cost on top.

The bus driver in either situation must either save up for this, or get a loan and slowly pay it off in order to acquire the home. The only difference in an increased cost.

it’s valuable to have the opportunity to just rent a place instead of investing all that energy to build a house, just to have a place to live.

I agree! however, if a person is paying for a home over the course of years this is what pays for maintenance and for improvement. The landlord must ask for more to gain profit. I’d argue, if someones paying for something they should gain something in return. If a person is paying more for a house than it costs to maintain they should acquire equity in the house. They should become partial owners of the house or apartment.

Rentals are a value to the renter, by virtue of being rentals, and it’s a value that houses don’t have when you own them. It’s simply the lower cost of entry to the living situation.

You can gain the same value through a mortgage loan, or a rent-to-buy agreement while also gaining equity on the house

Maybe the ownership in the village is the entire village. Like, nobody lays claim and everyone just pitches in to fix it when needed, because it’s valuable. The owner is the village, not the villager staying there.

This is public ownership of property, which I may agree is a partial solution, but I’d still agree with personal ownership of property. Public housing makes sense though as there is no profit incentive. They don’t need to make money off of the building. I still want a housing market though

Obviously, our current situation is fucked up and way too skewed toward being trapped. I personally think that would get better if we cut back with the suppression of new construction. Some building codes are good, but ours are bloated and that’s economically inflaming the homelessness crisis AND the declining mental health of the entire lower and middle classes.

I agree, though I’d argue the solution is to add in a public housing option for basic shelter thus allowing for a housing market to function based off of supply demand economics. On top of this, renters should accrue equity as it is their funds which maintain and improve the housing, any extra profit generated should be in exchange for this.

As for incoherence I assume we both suffer with this here. Also, I restated myself way more than needed. Sorry for that. Thank you for the conversation though

Ok, looks like I have to break this into at lease two parts

Book one

Housing Demand

No: the demand for housing stays the same, thus the amount of money to be had for housing stays the same, and hence if the same number of units exist then the average unit does not change in price by one unit improving. It’s only that this unit moves up within the mass of units, while all the others move down a little.

If you take one home, move it up, then there is one less home in the lower end. Supply in the lower end market decreases.

Average is a factor of adding all prices together then dividing it by the quantity. If one price increases the average increases. If all landowners do this to create profit prices for housing prices increase quite quickly. By making your housing more close to luxury housing you are decreasing the supply of non-luxury housing.

If we have three houses one costs 100 the other 200 the last 300 the average price is 200. If a person buys the 200 house, adds a pool, and sells it for 230 then the average is now 210. The average has increased. Now, if all profit from selling housing was tied to improvement, then all three must sell improve then sell for 30 more. Increasing the average by 30.

No, because this stuff all follows from the previous sentence which I NOed too. The sum of a lot of average zero changes is zero. It doesn’t cause contagion to the rest of the market.

I don’t think you understand. If someone buys a house for 100, does nothing, and attempts sells it for 130 they gain the same profit as a person who buys at 100, adds a pool, then sells for 135 (The pool cost 5 to add). In both situations a person profits 30 but in the second, they need money outright for the pool and labour, and the hope that there’s a market for housing with a pool when this is finished. In the first, they need only maintain the house.

If everyone simply increases price while doing nothing to improve then the new price for housing is 130. Those who don’t increase will have the houses they sell bought by the people willing to do so who will have more money to buy more houses out-competing. People will still buy houses because shelter is a nessesity. This is an inelastic good.

In the situation where pricing increases without improvement, yes, improvement can elevate the class of the house and maybe they sell it for 160 but in a system where improvement is needed for profit their improvement is not special it is market average, and they will profit the same as everyone else. Improvement adds risk, takes time, and at scale will always be beaten by non-improvement.

Lastly, though supply may fluctuate demand at the lower end will be the same. Everyone needs housing. If everyone makes improves their housing to sell for a profit, lower end housing supply decreases, prices rise. If nobody improves their housing and increases lower end pricing people will simply pay more for the required good.

Ha, eventually we’ll be mailing each other novels the size of way and peace. Looks like mine was a two parter. No worries man

If you improve the building, thus increasing it’s value, you’ve increased the proportional value of this house compared to the market. Now, since this house has increased in value, the average price of housing goes up and this house is less affordable. If everyone does this then the same effect takes place of average housing increasing in cost but now there’s a large quantity of very nice unaffordable housing. You no-longer increase it’s proportional value and the average price still goes up. Your house is in the same class as other housing bought at the same time.

If all landowners continually improve their housing in order to increase profits the profits must increase to a point where the cost to improve is matched and exceeded. This means that all property one wants to profit off of must still increase in price quicker than inflation. Under your proposed solution this only means the housing is nicer.

The outcome is the same, less affordable housing. If more, cheaper, housing is created then the value of these improved properties must decrease as well (supply and demand) and these cheaper houses if the price stays tied to inflation the profit gained is stagnant. There is no incentive to increase housing.

Currently though this is not happening. Most investment properties increase in value without improvement. Most landlords simply profit off of ownership of this land and housing not in their added value. If all landlords were to improve housing instead of simply raising price then that would increase investment price while not increasing overall profit. They’d make the same amount of money they would if they simply didn’t improve it. There is no incentive to improve as this adds risk for no reward. This is only possible on a small scale, and why we see few companies making profit off of buying housing, improving, and selling.

On rentals, even if they did cause value to be added, it would be through the money of the tenents and the labor of the workers. They are simply a middle man who adds no inherit value to this process. They produce no value, they simply take money from one hand, pocket some, and place some into another who adds value for them.

To clarify, in order for investment properties to work the value of a property must increase quicker than inflation in order to profit. Otherwise, you’re not investing, you’re simply retaining current buying power. This is true of all investments. You want your buying power to increase, not stagnate. This means that the cost of housing must increase at a higher rate than general inflation, and thus the cost of mortgage and rent must take up a larger portion of a persons salary otherwise the investors (landlords, investment property owners) will not profit.

Along with that income has not kept pace with inflation and hasn’t for more than 50 years. Both these issues have compounded to create the issue we see today. This is a closed system, and in order for one piece of the economy to be more profitable other pieces must decline. Otherwise, you are stagnating. Stagnation under capitalism is death.

I agree though that the prices of housing should be tied to inflation (or, better, to a percentage of average wage) but that would, necessarily, mean that the property does not accrue profit, it only sticks to inflation. This is not profitable, this is not an investment. This would, essentially, abolish landlords but in a much more economically violent way as their investment portfolio is now worthless (as an investment).

In other industries the cost of each product can decrease as efficiancy increases, and volume increased through incremental changes and diversification. This allows for profit to increase while the cost of goods matches inflation (or, like with computers, they get cheaper). Now, I’d argue this is unsustainable as eventually you’ll hit a wall where it’s not possible to decrease cost to manufacture, and you must now increase cost to purchase quicker than inflation, but there are ways to mitigate this and in it’s whole that is another conversation.

Apologies for novel, thank you for your kind argument though. You seem like a chill person

With the absurd increases of rent globally, record profits for landlords, and massive amount of empty properties have these laws worked?

If properties are seen as an investment, as they currently are, they must always increase in value at a greater rate than inflation. This means that, in order for investment properties to work, housing must always become more expensive. This increases rent and makes buying a home more impossible yearly. If they lower in price, then the investment fails. The cost of making housing accessible is the economy.

The issue isn’t simply increasing rent arbitrarily this is a marathon. They’ll raise rent at a higher rate than workers accrue money as they currently are. This makes housing unaffordable. UBI is a band-aid solution that doesn’t fix the root issue.

Even Adam Smith agreed landlordship was a poor idea in a capitalist market. Renters should accrue equity, or housing should become public.

Yeah, I agree, we should abolish landlords