Pika

Pika , 2 months ago to lemmyshitpost in Just 5 more minutes

The up vote and downvote system is one of the few things on Lemmy that I think is worth not having, it’s nice knowing the relative popularity of a post ahead of time but it should be used as a does this add to the conversation, and not a I agree or disagree with the conversation. When it’s used as an agree or disagree, the opposing side gets reduced visibility in many clients (whether this is lemmy side or client side idk)

Sadly a lot of people do it based off of their opinion of the post instead, it’s one of the reasons that I turned my scores off the other week I want to read the comments based off their contribution to the conversation at hand, and when people use downvote for opinion it creates a tunnel vision/echo chamber.

Sure by doing this you lose the ability to see up votes, but it also removes your subconscious judgement of a post before you enter, you get to read it as it is.

Pika , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to nostupidquestions in How do you keep your homes clean?

I gave up keeping the floor clean, I’m the only one that cleaned in the house, any complaints about the dirt on the floor was met with “well you should be wearing shoes”, any attempt at cleaning the clutter is met with the other household members stressed out because things changed. I take any W I can, but it’s defo a learn to get used to it type of situation at least in my case.

But if you manage to somehow do that let me know cause I haven’t managed it completly either lol

Pika , 3 months ago to fediverse in What's your take on Bluesky?

I mean i have a Bsky account, I don’t really use the platform since it doesn’t seem all that active in comparison to others available.

From my understanding they created it as a escape from the changes they disliked on twitter, but like in my opinion the privacy settings on it are far too simplistic to be able to function properly as a service. I find myself checking basically every other service instead.

Pika , 3 months ago to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

By this logic, if a person is driving and looking at their phone, runs a red light and causes an accident, they shouldn’t be held responsible if they don’t give the person reasonable compensation. It wasn’t there intent to cause an accident, it was a mistake. Asking for the property she paid for in the condition she bought it is reasonable.

They would be held responsible, just like the company would be held responsible regardless of the outcome here. If she had sued the company she would win that full force. But the lawsuit isn’t for whether the company is at fault or not, the lawsuit is whether she is trying to exploit their mistake for her own personal gain. This article never talks about it but, other articles have the response from PJ Constructions Attorney

“My client believes she’s trying to exploit PJ Construction’s mistake in order to get money from my client and the other parties,” Olson told The Associated Press Wednesday of her rejecting an offer for an identical lot.

Also, you have no idea what she wants from a 3 minute video. All we know is what the developer offered. She may have asked for the house to be demolished and they said no because it would cost them more money to do so.

I have been reading into it because I have a vested curiosity on it, so I pardon if information is given that isn’t in that article. I agree that not all information is on the table, she might have mentioned it and it was not provided in any of the articles I read related to this for some reason.

Pika , 3 months ago to noncredibledefense in Can I copy your homework? Yeah just change it up a bit so it doesn't look obvious

“I’m sorry sir, the patent for a flying machine with a large rotor on top and the smaller rotor behind is currently rejected for being too broad”

Pika , 3 months ago to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

I am under the understanding that they were not even aware of the issue until that point, but I could be wrong there.

Pika , 3 months ago to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

Sorry, I know I’m not amazing at explaining things.

I’ll try rephrasing as a question. What should the company at this point of time do?

The company incorrectly built a house on the wrong property plot, they realize their mistake far too late in the process due to someone’s negilance along the process whether it’s the development company or the construction company maybe even both.

They have reached out to the person whose life they fucked up basically because they now have more in taxes and also now have to deal with squatters and vandalism on the house that they have stated they don’t want.

The landowner has refused to talk it out with the company at all regarding any type of suggestions it’s just been a straight no to any proposal(which as stated multiple times already they were not obligated to do I understand this) while also not bringing anything new to the table including anything to do with restoration or bulldozing

Aside from bringing into the legal system what can that company do?

Pika , 3 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

I’m not saying that she’s the only unreasonable party and the company itself is definitely being unreasonable as well, I just definitely don’t think she’s helping the matter at all. Especially since this likely will be brought up in the hearing

Pika , 3 months ago to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

yes.

Pika , 3 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

like stated prior, while she is under no obligation to suggest anything, the fact that she did not at all indicates her intention

Pika , 3 months ago to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

So then if they are being unreasonable her suggestion should be that they pay for the bulldoze correct? unless I missed it somewhere I have not seen it posted she suggested this at all.

Pika , 3 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

I’m not sure if you’re saying that I’m suggesting that it’s crazy or if you’re just stating it so I’m responding, I’m not saying that it’s crazy one way or the other I’m just stating what she gave as the reason for it

I think we can both agree that the valid outcome of this will be that the property will be bulldozed but the fact that she hasn’t suggested is herself suggest that she might want the house there she just doesn’t want to pay for it.

Pika , 3 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

I’m not purchasing victim blame I’m stating that they’ve acknowledged they fucked up they’ve tried to fix it she has not stated she wants it bulldozed nor has she accepted any of the Alternatives that they did.

Being as she was informed of this mistake last year, she has had ample time to either propose a solution on her end or accept a solution on their end she has done neither. Which is why I led to my conclusion that she’s trying to get a $500,000 house for no cost

They have sued her because she’s not being cooperative in any form, and then when she remained being non-cooperative they sued everyone else involved to make it so the legal system decides if she’s being unreasonable or not

Pika , 3 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to news in Property owner stunned after $500,000 house built on wrong lot: ‘Are you kidding me?’

I will preface this with this warning because I know in advance this will be a hot take

I think she’s being unreasonable. No if ands or buts, I agree with the company that is suing her, this does not mean that I agree that they should have built the house in the first place; because it was not their property. However, they have tried multiple times to reach a resolution with her that would help both sides, she has turned down every offer so far stating she didn’t want the house there in the first place.

This is a reasonable response, however let’s go over what she’s turned down so far:

• she has turned down an offer of another plot of land, which was offered free of charge and still in the same area that her other house was which she has turned down because the coordinates are against her zodiac signs.
• They have offered to sell her the house at a discounted value, what she is also turned down not because she doesn’t think the house shows value, but because “It would set a dangerous precedent if you could go onto someone else’s land, build anything you want, and then sue that individual for the value of it"

This would be 100% understandable if it weren’t for the fact that it is very clear that this was not their intention and also not what they are doing, they are suing the discounted value of it because they know they fucked up.

I agree with the company accusation, she is trying to take advantage of what was a mistake, if she truly felt the way that she feels she would bulldoze the lot or be trying to work with the company to have them pay for bulldozed costs, neither of which have been publically stated(not that the company would agree with bulldozing it). She wants to take advantage of this mistake and get a free 500,000 house out of it. I will be interested how this plays out in court, I’m not a lawyer but I hard disagree with this case being an open shut case like the practicing attorney video posted in another comment.

edit: to save people asking me for the eighth time the same question, yes I understand she has no obligation to propose a solution, but the fact that she has not done so also indicates towards the intent.

Pika , 3 months ago to linuxmemes in Russian delete

the backup was connected via /media/backups so that’s gone too!