IPTV is generally for live TV channels rather than on-demand.

Yeah that's what I mean... it would be good for society if prices went down, but it would also make a lot of people pissed off, so they intentionally dance around actual solutions in favor of shit like this.

I recently moved to Vienna and don't qualify for the public housing (you need to have lived here for a certain amount of time)but the sheer amount of it (and relative quality) means that even in the private market, competition is much less.

Compared to other cities we have lived in, the rent is much lower and the quality much higher.

Something like 60% of the population lives in either public or subsidized housing!

It's the perfect solution for the democrats because it sounds good but also won't actually cause housing prices to go down, so homeowners won't feel like they are 'losing' money.

Sure, here's a paper which explores the effects.

Essentially, housing prices have hugely inflated (in much of the developed world) because demand is much higher than supply. Prices in the real-estate market are generally really reactive to changes in supply or demand because each 'product' is unique and limited, as well as being worth a lot of money so there is more pressure to maximize the potential gains.

This sort of plan increases the resources available to the demand side without increasing the supply side. This drives up prices since there are more potential buyers.

Anyone who couldn't buy a house without such a program is being added the the pool of people competing for a limited supply of houses. It won't increase supply because supply is heavily limited by other factors, most notably zoning.

It's unfortunate, because the thought behind such a policy is admirable. It's trying to make buying a house more fair and more easily achievable for a broad segment of the population that currently is effectively shut out from owning a home.

It definitely looks a lot like Toronto, but it's been a while since I was there

In the UK a similar scheme just led to the entry-level segment of the real-estate market inflating faster than the rest.

It also led to a rise in more 'luxury' entry-level properties being built.

Again, it's not exactly the same concept, but in the case of the UK, most economists agree that most buyers actually would have been better off if the policy had never been introduced, since the price rises ended up outpacing the value of the assistance.

The UK had a similar scheme for first time buyers and it's often cited by economists as one of the biggest things fueling their housing crisis.

But please based on wealth rather than income.

Rich people don't become rich from income.

It's been years since I had to deal with MATLAB licenses, since basically everything in scientific computing/data science uses Python these days!

In most European countries governments are elected for 3-6 years (though they may end up happening more frequently since, most places, it's possible to call early elections). The campaigning only really happens for 1-2 months before the election.

The fact that the US essentially spends 1.5-2 years campaigning for a 4 year position is insanity to me!

I mean, I'm saying that.

To me I've never understood why sit-down restaurants should be looked at any differently to any other business. Why can't the actual price just be listed on the menu?

Like, if we've collectively decided that the actual price is 20% higher than what is listed, then let's just treat this like every other profession and raise prices by 20%.

Why are people taking orders and carrying food special? Other customer-facing positions generally don't get tips. Chefs (who make the food!) generally don't get tips.

Just pay the waitstaff a fair wage and quit the tipping!