Urist

This is a stupid take. Of course they should fear death. It means the loss of everything they loved, even though they won't experience said loss.

It’s the dog equivalent of one kid pushing down another kid in the playground, i.e. they’re learning how to play and it’s not justification for being shot and killed.

They are much younger, meaning more malleable, and are also exhibiting different behavioural patterns.

Kristi was training the dog to hunt and kill birds (...)

This is a good point, but unfortunately it is the case that pets often have to suffer the consequences of their owner's insufficient knowledge and experience. She trained a dog for a purpose that requires her to be able to control it, without actually building the relation with the animal to attain this.

There’s no story about this dog seeking out Kristi, her kids, or any other humans to bite them (...)

The owner has a responsibility to prevent this before it happens. If there are early signs and the owner cannot control the dog, they have to find another solution rather than hope for the best on the expense of a child who may be mildly to seriously hurt and develop a lifelong traumatic fear of dogs.

Not attempt to teach it to be calm, not leash train it, not wait for it to grow out of being an adolescent into an calmer adult dog.

She had it for 1.4 years, of course she has attempted (unsuccessfully and probably not extinguishing all options) to rectify its behaviour. The owner's limitations will hurt the dog, but it is right to recognize that their relation should stop. There could potentially be a third solution that included placing it for adoption, but the majority of animal lovers that you mention in the sentence

That summary execution is why animal lovers and people who hunt with dogs are expressing disgust with her decision.

do not really want to adopt a dog that is not still a puppy because it is not "cute enough" and not malleable enough, precisely one of the issues that distinguishes this situation (to my knowledge) from your anecdotal story.

I get that she is probably a shitty person who wants to do wrong things without further justification other than "somebody had to do it and I am such a person". However, I detest anything resembling the infantile moral judgement in the style of Hollywood, where the definite evaluation of good and bad characters are by how they treat a dog. Dogs are not that special.

If you could provide a non-crackpot reference to said math, I would be much obliged.

Yeah, it is terrible :-( On average anyone who simply had grandparents living in Oslo has 1 000 000 NOK (about 100 000 USD) higher net worth than those that did not due to this increase.

Of course, the general standard of houses decline the further back in time you go, but houses were a lot cheaper back in the days. Below is a figure of housing prices in Norway relative to wages at the time (mirroring the situation almost everywhere in the west):

Factoring in the increased production capabilities over the same period of time, the construction cost of houses are not that much higher. If we designed our communities better and had a better system for utilizing the increased labour power, we could have much more affordable housing and more beautiful and well functioning societies.

Do not let it sit right with you. This future was stolen from you.

Of course not the sole reason in a strict sense. In many places, there are also tendencies of centralization that increases the pressure of housing in cities and some cities are subjected to geography that does not allow them to expand blindly. Ultimately however, the problem is one of failed politics. With sufficient planning, we could solve all of this.

Landlords and private real estate companies, often the same entities, do propagate and amplify this problem. Removing them is a step in the right direction. Short term it would crash the housing market, which is great for anyone not speculating in housing. Long term it would allow for and necessitate publicly planned housing based on actual needs instead of profitability for people that never needed the house in the first place.

Solving it is also quite easy: Raise taxation on any homes owned by someone not inhabiting it by an additional 100 % or so for each unit. Buy back some housing to be able to provide free housing for those unable to get even a subsidized home for themselves. Then treat housing as an actual need and human right, similar to food, electricity and other infrastructure.

That would be good for almost everyone and also actually good for the economy, if you give a crap about it.

The only reason costs of houses are so high in the first place is because they are lucrative investment objects, along with the fact that the most important part of city (and rural) planning, building homes, is largely left to private companies. You are assuming houses would be just as inaffordable without landlords, which is a problem of the current paradigm and not the one proposed.

Overleaf are not benefactors that develop LaTeX for economic gains, unlike the situation with Typst that rely on it (to my knowledge). LaTeX is also cross platform, supported in tons of editors and can easily be converted to other formats with pandoc. It is also somewhat supported in other formats using implementations such as KaTeX for Markdown and Mathjax in HTML due to being the defacto standard for math typesetting.

Writing papers in LaTeX is a joy, not a pain. The end result is also a beautifully typeset document rivalled by none.

From the LaTeX project:

The experience gained from the production and maintenance of LaTeX2e (the version you have been using for many years) had a major influence on our goals for future development and on new code which is now integrated into LaTeX.

A while ago we made the decision to drop the idea of a separate LaTeX3 format that would exist in parallel to LaTeX2e, but instead decided to gradually modernize LaTeX to keep it competitive in today’s world while maintaining compatibility methods for older documents.

I think this decision was pretty much a good one.

Overleaf does not modernize LaTeX in meaningful ways. It only adds cloud functionality and glossy appearance that you can get on dedicated editors anyways.

Learning LaTeX and working around its quirks seems like a much better time investment than sidegrading to something that lives on premises given by a proprietary commercial project. If someone saw LaTeX and said "I want to make some version of this that is better", without alterior motives, they would probably just work on improving LaTeX (which a whole lot of people do).

Fancy does not mean better, and often is in many ways worse than plain old boring.

The Typst compiler is open source. It is the open core of the web app and we will develop and maintain it in cooperation with the community

Try Typst now!

Create a free account to join the public beta.

Beta software marketing with "free accounts" and an open core compiler for a (probably) future paid web service tells me all I need to know.

Even though LaTeX has issues, not being an online service is not one of them.