It's been an increasingly &($ experience since about 1998. Doubleclick.com...

No, they are trying to equate intrusive software notifications with some sort of automobile safety hazard.

Not much software covers the speedometer in your car. In fact, annoyance isn't much of a vehicle safety issue, or we would not have on-ramps on the highway without traffic lights in the right-hand lane (in America, that is...).

I think we may agree that artists in any medium deserve to be paid for their work when they make it available for pay. And they are very right to keep it themselves if they wish to it, or set whatever limitations, restrictions, or requirements they have in mind. The GPL is a good example of this, copyright. The more remarkable one or more common. My complaint with copyright is that it extends beyond the life of the artist, and that doesn't strike me as Fair, unless the artist arranged for those rights to be held by someone else. Else. And then we get into the whole corporate copyright argument whether or not corporations should be allowed to hold copyright in. Definitely. Probably the thing to remember about that argument is that if the original artist, and if the cooperation employed the artist then the corporation as owner holds it for their life. Life. Well natural lifework corporation as infinite in concept. A mess

To me, while this is a union issue, there, of course seeking to protect their membership. I think this reaches into they a situation where they want their membership to be compensated for work they either lost, or were denied access to? I'm not sure I like that idea. But it doesn't really matter what I like, is it fair?

And we keep coming back to modern lease agreements where a commercial landlord makes us part of the lease payment. A share of revenue of the lessee. Or me. This is another business negotiation. In most cases that I'm familiar with, the commercial landlords would negotiate a lease without a share of revenue, it would just be a higher payment. Ultimately, they're looking for some value in return for providing the property. They're setting the value. Their Les c has to decide if it's tolerable or not. That's a business decision

A late comment, but I think this seems to be rent-seeking, masquerading as some form of protection or 'necessary' regulation.

This post started with the complaint that in areas where property values were increasing rapidly and/or significantly, businesses that were leasing did not share in these increases. And that it was not fair that they did not somehow profit from the property owners' own profits.

Which I still do not get. Property value increases generally should accrue to the property owner... Kinda obvious to me, but somehow, profiting from property value increases became an example of rent--seeking... And I still cannot make sense of that, in that I reject it as a misapplication.

But, if you sympathize with the lessees' complaint, I understand. You and they are just wrong.

This is instructive.

Page 35 is very interesting. Pages 43 & 45 do not load on my machine, which is disappointing, they may be very instructive.

I keep a web server active not for popularity, nor traffic, BUT JUST IN CASE.

It's as 'free' as a vps can be, which is to say nothing is 'free'.

I can whack up a Raspberry Pi, LAMP stack or whatever, and it's maybe a $60 cost today, SD card included.

Access to the Internet? Never was free. Even ARPANet required data lines, not free. I've used dial-up, DDS2, T-1/E-1, BRI, cable, fiber, none ever free.

I know what Tim Berners-Lee means, but there will always be choke points, and those today are, fundamentally, access points. If they wish, or are compelled to, they can cut you off. Even Meshtastic eventually needs that Internet connection to escape into the greater world.

So we should seek free access wherever possible, and not tilt at windmills of FOSS, dis-en$%#ification bs, or emotional suppression, and ensure your message gets out, even if no one reads or listens.

Interest or usury might be considered unethical or immoral, as it is in Islam. But it's not rent seeking. I give you some of my capital for you to use. I charge you interest on it. I put it at risk, if for no other reason but I'm putting in your hands and not mine. If you pay me back most excellent you got the use of it. I got the interest. If you don't pay it back, prima fascia example of risk.

I'll just take one example. The NFA tax that used to be required to buy suppressors distorts the market by restricting it to people who can afford to buy the suppressor. In addition to the tax. If you can't afford to buy the suppressor by itself, the argument is moving. You're not part of that. But add another couple hundred bucks on top of it, and you do have a problem. I neglected dimension that in that process it was not uncommon for applicants to wait 6 to 9 months for approval of what was merely an administrative function.

I won't go any further because ultimately a lot of this is going to be in the eye of the beholder. My bottom line is still by bottom line, landlords rarely can be considered in the economics since rent seekers. They provide value. Whether it's proportionate to the the payments received, while that's a contract and that's between the two parties.

Hanlon's Law.

Yes, you could help yourself to not attribute mistakes to malice. But it's more rewarding to find fault in others.

Would not bother me at all if Aluminum ditched X for Wayland. X11 is an interesting kludge that has been 'made to work' over the years. Mostly by taking advantage of various lax permissions, poorly defined functions, and tolerance of workarounds because, frankly, X did not want to be bothered with fixing much if it could avoid it. That's a good strategy for games and toys, bad strategy for industry standards.

I, for one, welcome our new window manager and compositor overlords.

OK. Common examples of rent-seeking would include:

The NFA previously required payment of a $200 fee for a 'stamp' or something, so that you would be permitted to purchase a suppressor, or other restricted firearm accessories. Adding absolutely NO value to the transaction, other than registration, which would be the second criteria to be considered as a 'rent-seeker'.

Many states permit reciprocal privileges for certain trades and such, those in the cosmetology and similar fields, but they require a license fee anyways. This is to me 75% rent-seeking, they don't even test you, they should just accept the other states' licenses and just make them renew at their previous state. Which would then trigger a real licensing event, but we digress...

Many other professions in America and elsewhere are required to be licensed, pay fees, and not for any purpose than to share in the revenue.

From Wikipedia: "Rent-seeking is the practice of individuals or businesses trying to gain economic benefits through manipulation of public policy or economic conditions, rather than through productive activities.". A definition, but one I think is somewhat limited. But based, quoting, on "Adam Smith's division of incomes into profit, wage, and economic rent. The origin of the term refers to gaining control of land or other natural resources."

This is where the depiction of landlords as rent-0seekers comes from, their ownership of property and deriving revenue from that. In truth, this more accurately refers to the Middle Ages and other eras where the local warlord (etc.) would purport to provide protection and other benefits to the surrounding villagers and farmers in exchange for a 'tax', a share of their goods, crops, revenue. This ultimately, in England, became the landed gentry system, with the good results of the Magna Carta, and the bad effects Adam Smith documented as described above, somewhat.

Regulatory capture is a more contemporary example, and along with so many other effects, such as failed regulation and even damaging practices... Even more harm.

Landlords that offer their property for occupancy, for a fee, collect rent, but offer the value and utility of the space. Not rent-seeking in the economics understanding. Collecting a fee to permit you to occupy a seat in a stadium and enjoy viewing a movie is also not that form of 'rent-seeking', though it resembles landlord activity, differing in the space made available, the duration of the lease, and not merely an enclosed space suitable for habitation or business, but the provision of entertainment...

Demonization of landlords in the root example here was based on the allegation that increases in property value within a neighborhood being 'gentrified', and resulting in those property value increases, should be shared with tenants in commercial property, despite those tenants, presumably because they should be renumerated for their contribution to the overall improvements and such. This ignores that likely reality that they both are in business ONLY because of the local economic improvements, and also that their success of failure is not entirely dependent on the landlord, beyond their landlord providing suitable premises.

But demonization of successful private enterprises is a basic tenant of Marxism, which is getting popular in the US. That's an entirely different discussion etc.

...MCSE school. Having an illuminating discussion wit the instructor over using the .local TLD for internal DNS. Followed by "well, just use .mslocal, that will be safe forever."

Admittedly this was 1993, when no one could conceive of new TLDs. Except for a few of us CNEs who were trained to think ahead, occasionally.

We were trained to have our clients register their domain, immediately, and run their own internal DNS, back when it was truly wizardry. But worth it.

Why does Outlook etc. even permit this? Well, pink contracts and take the business, even of scanners. Microsoft is not alone in this.

Reduce opportunity? Then you're also identifying usery, debt and interest, as rent-seeking?

A landlord does not have any duty to enhance 'opportunity', other than provide usable space. If you think higher rents reduce opportunity and deprive for instance, shop owners opportunity to practice, then you must feel the same way about gasoline prices, taxes, utilities, every expense. Rent or lease for a property is an expense for a business owner if they choose to do it that way.