Lurker > adjl

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That rule of thumb is ancient and wrong, it's pretty common to spend half your income.

I wouldn't necessarily say "wrong" so much as "unrealistic." That's a good ideal to aim for, if you can manage it, but because of how aggressively the rental market has inflated relative to wages, you probably won't achieve that standard without either making quite a lot (way more than can reasonably be considered a minimum standard for renting) or settling for a shoebox.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

lihlih posted...

You do know that mentality like this is why poor people stay poor, right?

There's a world of difference between saying "it's only a small percentage of my income, I might as well buy it" so many times that your income is eaten up by those small purchases, and saying "I'm spending this small percentage of my income this one time after considering whether or not it's worthwhile and how that fits into my overall financial plan." Letting yourself treat some of your income as disposable won't doom you to poverty forever, you just have to be sensible about it and set reasonable limits for your discretionary spending. If you're well-off, spending $200 on this one thing you want isn't going to change that.

Now, saying "I've already bought a couple other expensive things lately, so I can't justify this one" is perfectly reasonable. Going straight to "that's why poor people stay poor," though, is just silly.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

rexcrk posted...

But the Wii U hAs No GaMeS

To be fair, its library is indeed very small. It has some real gems, not all of which have been ported (and most of which were completely exclusive during the WiiU's run), but it's not a large library.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

a ton more of those were produced over longer periods of time

And, perhaps most notably, had successors that were backwards compatible. The WiiU's had a lot of exclusives ported to the Switch, but playing the games people already own is impossible without either keeping the original system or buying a new copy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Judgmenl posted...

Sorry I don't celebrity worship.

I tried using this phrase to generate something, but it said the estimated waiting time was 320 minutes, and that joke just isn't good enough to be worth that kind of time.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

"People are dying!"

Gov: C'mon, death ain't that bad

We've really come to the point where these idiots would rather take a stance like that than actually admit this is a problem that needs solving.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Make brownies, then mix the peanut M&M's into them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

lol at playing botw on the ambulance...

almost as bad as twilight princess on gamecube

Speaking as somebody who played and enjoyed TP just fine on the Wii, the near-universal opinion is that the GC version is the better one (and, in fact, it was the GC version that was used as the base for the remake).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

"A casserole is just a salad with extra cheese" - Gordon Ramsey, maybe.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I hit him twice and he dies.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Reminder: Having privilege doesn't mean you never have problems. It just means you don't have the problems that somebody else has in whatever the current context is.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I'd guess most of the people that didn't sell theirs around the time that BotW was announced to no longer be exclusive don't plan on getting rid of them any time soon, and that batch of sales happened a long time ago. Now, there just aren't that many out there.

That's likely been compounded by the number of people that transferred their Wii data to their WiiU before that service shut down. For many WiiU owners, that's now their only way to access all of their Wii digital purchases (since Nintendo's been a bit slow about this whole "account" thing), making the idea of selling it even less appealing. Given that there's unlikely to ever be a WiiU-->Switch transfer option (since there's no VC on the Switch, nor the capacity to emulate either the Wii or the WiiU), I don't see that changing any time soon.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Lokarin posted...

but you need wifi to text anyways... or what, I'm old and don't know things

Texting is primarily done via cell signals.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

Friends
Seinfeld

I don't think he's talking about shows that represent the 90's. He's talking about a new show, made in the 20's (... that's hard to say >.>), but set in the 90's, much like 70's Show was made in the 90's and set in the 70's.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Richter1234 posted...

So if the vaccinated still have to social distance and isolate what purpose is there of a vaccine?

The vaccinated won't have to isolate and distance once enough of the population is vaccinated to prevent the disease from spreading. That herd immunity threshold was estimated to be around 70-75% before variants entered the mix, but with Delta's vastly greater transmissibility and capacity for breakthrough infections, that's likely to end up being quite a bit higher. Either way, though, the US is nowhere close to having enough people vaccinated to be able to comfortably give up all other infection control measures.

Additionally, the vast majority of hospitalized Covid patients are unvaccinated, even with Delta causing so many breakthrough infections. The more people are vaccinated, the less likely it is that ICU's will reach capacity and have to turn patients away to die (including many patients not suffering from Covid-related problems). Given that that is happening as we speak in many of the states that are being hardest hit by the fourth wave, I think that preventing that qualifies as a pretty good purpose for the vaccine.

Furthermore, even if we accept the premise that vaccinated people shouldn't have to practice other infection control measures (which has its merits, in a vacuum), the simple logistical reality of the matter is that you can't enforce those restrictions exclusively on unvaccinated people without a robust proof of vaccination system, something you explicitly expressed a desire to never see. You can't have it both ways: If you want vaccination to grant people special privileges, you need a reliable system for verifying vaccination status. Otherwise, you just get exactly what happened when the CDC said vaccinated people don't need masks anymore (at a point when a mere 30% of the country was vaccinated), which is everyone ditching the masks and letting this fourth wave go wild. If you don't want a system for verifying vaccination status, vaccination can't grant people special privileges, and restrictions can be lifted only enough people get vaccinated that new cases stop showing up.

Richter1234 posted...

The fact is if the vaccine worked as normal vaccines do then the social distance and isolation wouldn't be required. Yet for what ever reason it still is.

"Normal vaccines" also leave the potential for breakthrough cases and transmission (though those breakthrough cases tend to be significantly less dangerous to vaccinated people, which is exactly what we also see with the Covid vaccines). The existing diseases for which that's a serious concern, however, have already been mostly eradicated through successful vaccination campaigns and maintaining herd immunity, so it's fairly rare for such breakthrough cases to even occur, let alone turn into serious outbreaks (though the growing anti-vaxx movement has led to a number of measles outbreaks in recent years).

Covid, however, is still very much active and herd immunity has not been reached, so breakthrough cases are more likely (due to the increased exposure frequency and viral load) and do comprise a significant public health risk (to say nothing of the aforementioned issue of it being impractical to determine who is and is not vaccinated and the very pressing need for the rest of the population to continue those measures). Toss in that it's an extremely dangerous disease that requires considerable public health measures to control, and you've got you "what ever reason."

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

LeetCheet posted...

What the heck? What did I do to make these two really nice women to do this for me?

In a nutshell, you're a nice guy and they're upset that you were treated so poorly. I doubt you did anything specific, you're just a person that they genuinely like and they don't want to see bad things happen to you.

LeetCheet posted...

Yeah they both told me that I'm respectful to a fault even to someone who clearly showed me a lack of respect.

Try not to let this experience drive you to lose that. Being respectful is generally a good thing; becoming less respectful because of this would be bad. Instead, make sure you direct some of that respect toward yourself and try to recognize when people are taking advantage of it, then distance yourself from them.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That limit seems too extreme, but on paper I kinda like the concept of anti-addiction systems alluded to later in the article. I have no faith that any government in the world could ever implement one properly, since they're all run by old men who can't comprehend any gaming experience more complex than Pong, but implementing something to counteract the blatant predation of publishers on those prone to addiction could help with how much of a problem lootboxes and microtransactions can be.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kotenks posted...

This quote here is so disheartening. You have a family to care for and you're worried about the media being right? I can't even begin to understand this man's mentality. Ridiculous. And it got him killed.

Yeah, that's probably the worst thing about this. He knew he was in trouble and that there was a good chance he was wrong about Covid, but he cared so much about obscuring that truth to make the media look bad that he got himself killed. He deserved worse than he got.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This'll shock you, but businesses exist to meet the needs of the consumer, so your carbon footprint includes what your needs make big businesses have to produce to meet that.

Indeed. There's still room to push for more stringent regulations on businesses, since in many cases consumers don't have more environmentally friendly alternatives to choose, but you should still make some effort to research the products and services you consume and try to make more environmentally conscious decisions around them (which may boil down to "consume less").

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Straughan posted...

Nowadays, if you even breath the wrong opinion, you're the devil and people remember you and hate you. It's almost like the only answer is to avoid it. If you want to be friends with everyone.

That's generally only true if by "wrong opinion," you mean "gay people don't count as humans," or similar sentiments. And, really, that's fair, because that is a horrible opinion to hold and nobody that holds such beliefs can ever remotely be considered a good person.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I really wish there were a way to turn off that notification. I've never remotely cared about GameFAQs badges, and even if I did, they come so quickly that that notification is almost permanently there. I've just given up clearing it because it comes back too quickly.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SantaKhala posted...

[According to this logic,] People who get covid because they're unvaccinated should be denied healthcare.

People who get covid even though they are vaccinated should be denied healthcare.

People who get complications due to side effects from the vaccine should be denied healthcare.

People who are black or minorities should be denied healthcare.

Segregation 2.0... Why are we even paying taxes?

None of these are the consequences of personal risk-taking decisions, so they are not in any way logically analogous.

SantaKhala posted...

According to this logic smokers should be denied healthcare.

People who eat at McDonald's should be denied healthcare.

People who drink soda should be denied healthcare.

People who smoke weed should be denied healthcare.

These are logically analogous, but are not creating nearly the same level of crisis as people refusing Covid vaccinations are. Can you find even a single example of any one of those things single-handedly filling up so many ICU's that somebody died of an unrelated medical issue waiting for a bed to open up?

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Name one liberal with a ford raptor.

I can't name anyone of any political persuasion with a Ford Raptor.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Richter1234 posted...

Remember when it was 14 days to flatten the curve?

14 days was never anything more than an extreme, absolute best case scenario. To achieve that would have taken a complete, absolute lockdown of absolutely everyone in the world for those two weeks (realistically, at least 3-4 to be on the safe side) and subsequent complete isolation of anyone that developed symptoms in that time frame. Obviously, the logistics of making that happen mean that was effectively impossible and therefore nothing more than a fantasy.

Furthermore, "flattening the curve" is a long-term strategy, not a solution that can be achieved. It's a matter of avoiding major spikes that risk overwhelming the health care system (like what's happening right now in much of the southern US). That strategy has seen some amount of success, so characterizing it as something that never happened is just outright wrong.

Richter1234 posted...

Then everyone must isolate and social distance.

Yes, that was part of slowing the spread to keep it from being overwhelming.

Richter1234 posted...

Then to you need to be vaccinated and things can get back to normal. Now you need to still wear a mask, social distance and be vaccinated.

Given that barely over half of Americans have been vaccinated at this point, it stands to reason that things wouldn't be back to normal yet. Not sure why that's supposed to be evidence of any sort of grand plan to erode rights.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

How much is it to get a doctor's appointment? I'm left wondering how this is different from any other fee a doctor would normally charge to eamine a patient.

Presumably, this is on top of the normal appointment fee. It's not unusual for doctors to charge an extra fee for things like sick notes.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mostly, it's an attitude that drinking is something to be done to relax at the end of a day of being productive. If you're drinking before then, it's because you're either not spending the day being productive or you're too addicted to alcohol to go without it until the "correct" time, both of which are seen as moral failures by the sort of person that makes a big deal out of it.

In practice, the vast majority of people don't care what time you're drinking at, so long as you aren't being irresponsible about it. The whole "it's 5 o'clock somewhere!" thing is pretty much exclusively a joke, not a matter of anyone seriously saying that it's wrong to drink before then.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Straughan posted...

I'm sitting here after just failing a 2nd Charon fight having only gotten to Hades like 8 times and a max heat of 3. 32 to me seems impossible.

It gets easier as you go, particularly as you collect a decent amount of blood and upgrade your aspects.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That's the same direction.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

hockey7318 posted...

Yeah mine was my upper jaw that the way broke into three pieces and moved forward. Crazy part was that when they made the cuts, they moved my nerves up and out of the way so there was minimal pain. They gave me child strength ibuprofen afterwards.

Unfortunately Im part of the less than 10% who dont fully regain feeling but that only affects my gums on mg upper jaw. On the plus side I didnt have to get my jaw wired shut. Just a liquid diet for 6 weeks.

I got both jaws done. Top came forward 6 mm, bottom went back 4 mm. I had three cuts on top and two on the bottom. Wired shut for 3 weeks on a full liquid diet (discovery: Everything blends if you add enough broth; I only lost 5 pounds), limited to soft foods for 6 weeks after that. I also didn't have too much pain because the corresponding nerves were severed. When I was getting settled into my hospital room, the nurse asked me to rate my pain, then did a massive double-take when I said "I dunno, 1, maybe 2?", which was more hilarious than I was able to appreciate in my anaesthesia-addled state. I still went through a ton of children's tylenol (because no solids) over the next couple weeks to keep it that way, but it honestly wasn't as bad as "my face was in 7 pieces" makes it sound. I had a prescription for Dilaudid that I never actually filled.

I also ended up with some nerve damage. They struggled with the nerve on the bottom left, so that part of my lip was totally numb afterwards. It was really weird having it grow back, since there was a point where holding water in my left cheek made me feel like I was drooling (since the nerve ending was in the wrong spot). I never did fully regain sensation in that part of my lip, though. It's mild, but kind of unfortunate. Something about how the nerves got moved around in my upper jaw has also meant that I can now force myself to sneeze by rubbing my tongue on the roof of my mouth the right way, which is weird, but harmless.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I wouldn't call it horror, but the Clue movie is quite delightfully campy.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

OhhhJa posted...

Watch landlords are bad because people rent and then can't pay. Maybe don't f***ing rent a place if you don't have a steady job with halfway decent income.

Did you miss the part where a very significant number of people got laid off completely unexpectedly because of the massive global public health crisis, prompting the eviction moratorium in the first place? Because I don't think that's a risk most people would have taken into account in determining whether or not they had a steady job in 2019.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Smarkil posted...

Well turns out that does count for something then doesn't it?

Eh, yes and no. Like I said, it often doesn't take long for the difference between owning a property and renting it to add up to enough capital to form a decent safety net (if it didn't, landlords just plain couldn't make money), so that's really only a valuable service for people looking for shorter-term accommodations. On a long-term basis, it just slows down amassing enough capital to be able to own your own property, purely for the sake of providing that capital to somebody who had the good fortune to buy it before you were ready to (which, in many areas, was vastly easier 5 years ago than it would be today, even without the added challenge of doing so while paying higher rents) and is looking to supplement their income with that good fortune.

Long-term renting is a symptom of a broken system where many properties are owned by relatively few people that have hoarded them, making it harder for renters to ever graduate to ownership because there are so few viable opportunities. That's one of the major routes by which wealth inequality forms and worsens, especially when you start getting into properties being inherited or sold off in large chunks to developers that permanently turn the land into properties no non-corporation will ever be able to own.

Smarkil posted...

Are banks also middlemen because they're only taking on the risk of taking money from savings and lending them to borrowers?

In some sense, perhaps, but they also provide the very helpful service of storing and transporting money, and the middleman services they provide are something that the vast majority of people will never be able to provide for themselves because they don't operate on a sufficient scale.

Smarkil posted...

Long term real estate is literally not a high risk investment.

Whether you're looking long-term or short-term, any real estate investment is always going to be beholden to the market, which is quite volatile. At any time, a significant drop in local property values can more or less completely eliminate your ability to turn a profit on your investment because you'll need to drop rent to unprofitable levels to stay competitive. That's even without considering the unpredictability of tenants on top of that (even in a perfect system that does allow immediate removal of and compensation from problem tenants, you're never going to escape the risk of missing a couple months' rent because a tenant had to leave unexpectedly), nor the fact that landlords are taking on the risks of property ownership in lieu of their tenants and therefore stand a solid chance of having to make expensive emergency repairs.

It's not as high-risk as, say, flipping houses is, but it's still high-risk enough that going into it without a solid safety net is a bad idea.

Smarkil posted...

And no, you're not for improving the ability to protect the rights of landlords because you are right now actively defending the most egregious offense against their rights. You can't say you're for it and also be against it.

Sure I can. I'm all for landlords being able to quickly evict tenants that are damaging the property, falling behind on rent for reasons they could easily prevent, or that misrepresent their ability to pay the rent when they sign the lease. I'm also for landlords being prevented from evicting tenants that are unable to pay rent only because of the devastating economic consequences of this unprecedented public health crisis, since that's something far outside of those tenants' control, and piling a widespread homelessness crisis on top of that for the sake of preserving rental income isn't going to help anyone but a handful of landlords that somehow don't feel they should lose income during a massive economic crisis.

Smarkil posted...

The problem in your case is the mom and pop landlords aren't getting the support everyone else is getting and very often only seeing the negatives. Tenants got support directly. Commercial landlords got support directly. The middle did not - as usual and are now dealing with the squeeze that comes from both ends.

Yeah, that is a problem. If the supports that are necessary to get landlords through that loss of income aren't making it to the landlords that really need it, the support system isn't working as it ought to be. Ditching the eviction moratorium will alleviate that disparity to some extent, but it's also going to end up doing a whole lot of harm as even landlords that have been enjoying those supports start booting people out and creating an unprecedented homelessness crisis. I don't know that that's going to balance it out, ultimately.

Smarkil posted...

So...I guess f*** the good landlords by not allowing them to have a legal recourse for resolving their issues which is how the system was built? Cool. Let's have more bad landlords and less good landlords.

The system naturally favours bad landlords already (again, by cutting corners to increase margins and buy up a larger portion of the available properties than landlords that don't cut corners are able to buy). Improvements need to be made to help good landlords out, but again, I don't know how to fix that (nor is it really my job to figure that out). Any system meant to benefit good landlords dealing with bad tenants will inevitably be abused by bad landlords dealing with tenants they just feel like screwing over (for whatever reason), so it's difficult to strike a balance between protecting landlords from bad tenants and protecting tenants from bad landlords. In general, I'm inclined to favour the latter, though, simply because becoming a landlord is a choice, while becoming a tenant is a necessity for anyone whose parents don't outright give them a house. Treating homelessness as a viable alternative to renting just isn't realistic.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Cluster Bomb+Rockets is a good time. Horribly unreliable because of how hammers work, so it's hard to build around (though either one on their own is strong enough to justify building around the special), but shotgunning everything with massive explosions is delightful.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Yep. Fully vaxxed, and provincial case numbers are really good (creeping up slightly, averaging 5 per day instead of 1), plus the province is almost at 70% fully vaxxed (almost 80% of eligible people), but mask mandates are still in effect and I know it's not going to take much for a fourth wave to kick off (our third wave came entirely from one family that came from Ontario went to a gathering instead of isolating properly, and students are coming now), so I'm fine to keep wearing one to manage that risk.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MrMelodramatic posted...

but Im putting a lot of money into paying off credit card debt and student loans. Hopefully thats the right move.

Credit card debt, yes, absolutely. Get that down as quickly as you can, because those interest rates are terrible. Carrying a credit balance long-term is very much not something you should ever do, if you can avoid it. In addition to costing you quite a bit of money, carrying a high balance (relative to your credit limit) will also harm your credit score, so try to keep your balance down (<35% of your limit is the advice I've seen). Conversely, if you get offers to increase your credit limit, it can be a good idea to take them just for the sake of giving you more breathing room on your credit rating.

Student loans, maybe not so much. Depending on what your interest rates are, you may be better off making minimum payments and saving your money or spending it elsewhere. Carrying debt like that long-term is actually good for your credit score (since it shows your ability to manage debts). On the other hand, if your debt:income ratio is too high, that may affect your ability to be approved for a mortgage or other big loan, so it may be worthwhile to take some larger bites out of it for that sake (I'd talk to a mortgage advisor to see what's best there).

There's something to be said for the peace of mind that comes from being debt-free, which won't be reflected in the raw dollars and cents, but for lower-interest debt like student loans, it's not that uncommon for it to be more sensible to take your time in paying it off. Do some math and see how your various options will play out long term. In particular, if you need to maintain a minimum balance in your bank account to avoid a monthly fee, it's probably going to be better to maintain that than to put that balance toward your student loan.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

MasterChiefer posted...

How do we know youre not lying to us right now?

Because he's asking questions with no explicit informational content. Stating nothing axiomatically cannot be a lie (nor can it be a truth).

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

hockey7318 posted...

When I had my jaw surgery I remember that my first thought on waking up was that I had to pee. I didnt actually have to pee, it was just that my urethra was gauged out from the catheter that had been yanked out. No fun at all.

With my jaw surgery, I really did have to pee (I wasn't catheterized), so the nurse brought a jug that I'd guess was about 1-2 litres. I was genuinely concerned that it was going to overflow before I ran out of pee. They may have overdone the IV fluids >.>

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Dark_SilverX posted...

That should be the same with smokers with lung cancer and obese people who suffer heart attacks.

adjl posted...

How often do any of those poor choices result in other people dying because there are no ICU beds available for them thanks to all the people that made poor choices? Specifically, because those people all made one particular poor choice that's very, very easy to not make.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

The stereotypes check out, but I also very much doubt that the correlation is strong enough to make reliable predictions.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Personally, I feel morally justified in pirating anything I've paid for a digital copy of if access to that copy has been taken away for reasons beyond my control. I recognize that maintaining distribution servers indefinitely isn't altogether practical, especially when companies go under, but I'm also not about to buy an additional copy from a company that arbitrarily decided my access wasn't worth honouring.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

I have no strong opinions on her, but I think it's pretty hilarious how butthurt people get over some of the things she's said.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Dark_SilverX posted...

No I won't, but the people not paying rent will be complaining while laying on a bench.

I applaud your logical consistency, but I'm afraid you're very much in the minority if you want delinquent tenants thrown out but don't also mind the existence of homeless people. Most people saying things like that want poor people to outright disappear, and will happily turn a blind eye to whatever has to happen to effect that end.

Dark_SilverX posted...

The renters are blowing their money elsewhere,

What, like on food? Utilities? Sure, there will always be renters that frivolously spend money they get from rent relief programs, and that's bad, but characterizing every person that can't make rent like that is baseless and outright harmful, especially when you use that to justify ending programs that countless people legitimately rely on.

Smarkil posted...

(Greg Brown, senior vice president for government affairs for the National Apartment Association ) He said only $0.10 of every $1 that a housing provider receives is profit, with the remainder going to mortgage payments, property taxes or other operating expenses.

Averaging a 10% profit margin is actually pretty good, especially considering the fact that you're seeing a constant growth in equity as the mortgage is paid and will eventually see that margin skyrocket once it's paid off and the tenant is paying you in full instead of paying your mortgage for you. Even more so where, with a decent tenant and a well-maintained property, there really isn't much actual work involved in earning that profit. I can count on one hand the number of hours of labour my landlords have had to put into the units I've been renting in the past three years, and making a collective $4740 (assuming 10% profit) for that is really, really good.

Also, I have to laugh at "housing provider." Landlords are middlemen. They don't create or provide housing any more than a grocery store creates or provides vegetables. The service landlords provide is to take on the risks of property ownership so those without the capital to cover those risks can live somewhere (albeit at a premium that, in many cases, quickly totals more than that necessary capital would have been). That changes when you start dealing with larger developments, whose parent companies do create housing, but you're focusing on par-time landlords, so we'll stick to that (especially where the corporate landlords do tend to be the ones laughing on their yachts while they double people's rents for no reason). Trying to use euphemisms for "landlord" isn't fooling anyone.

Smarkil posted...

Most small landlords do not have access to credit to cover their costs from lost rent payments. More than half (58%) said they did not have access to any lines of credit that might help them in an emergency, according to Avail.

As much as I hate to be callous about that, real estate is well-known to be a high risk investment. This has always been true, as much as large rental corporations have been pushing to erode tenant rights in an effort to reduce that risk. If somebody's making such a high risk investment without establishing a Plan B to cover their costs if it goes awry, that's just poor planning on their part, such that it's hard to sympathize with it. I'm all for improving the ability to evict and secure compensation from genuinely bad tenants, since there are as many horror stories out there of horrible tenants as there are of horrible landlords, but not at the expense of the countless good tenants that don't actively destroy the properties they rent.

Furthermore, there's a global pandemic afoot that has drastically affected most people's ability to make money. Why shouldn't landlords expect to similarly lose income? Conversely, landlords should also expect the same supports that are being offered to other people that are losing income, as appropriate (and the fact that they aren't being properly distributed is indeed a problem), but the notion that landlords losing money from the eviction moratorium is inherently so terrible that it would justify doing away with it is granting landlords a special status that no other businesses are seeing, and there's just no reason for that.

Smarkil posted...

I net on this first property right now a grand total of $450 a month (about 15% of the total rent after mortgage/taxes but BEFORE maintenance costs) after years of rent increases and improvements to the property. I do all my own maintenance. Ive upgraded the property out of my pocket. I, during the pandemic, offered as much personal assistance to my tenants as possible to the point where I reduced rent for a number of months out of my own pocket just to help people out in a s***ty time.

And you know what? I appreciate that you've done that, and I'm sorry that you're being adversely affected by measures meant to protect tenants from less empathetic landlords. Much like good tenants often end up being hurt by measures meant to compensate for bad ones, good landlords often end up being hurt by measures meant to restrict bad ones. It's unfair all around, such that the whole system needs a lot of drastic changes. Unfortunately, the bad landlords tend to also make the most money (by virtue of cutting costs to improve their margins, which in turn allows them to purchase more properties), which gives them the lobbying power to keep screwing over tenants and good landlords alike, so who knows what it'll take to actually effect those changes.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Solid Sonic posted...

But really break it down. What are you actually saying when something is "fun" and how can that be conveyed to someone whom you know nothing about? Have you actually said anything once you've labeled something as "fun" to an outsider? Is that something they would understand in your terms?

I would argue not.

In order to make that subjective assessment useful for other people, you generally need to elaborate on what other sorts of things you find fun so they can compare their tastes to your own. It's not something that's tremendously useful in a vacuum, no, but you can typically make it useful by providing a bit of context.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

That's really unfortunate. Not as unfortunate as the fact that certain individuals are going to latch onto this tragedy and blow the associated risk out of proportion to fuel anti-vaccine sentiments that are killing and will continue to kill tens of thousands more people, but really unfortunate nonetheless. RIP, news lady.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

they treat people who smoke/drink/do other drugs... they treat obese people who can't stop stuffing their face.

How often do any of those poor choices result in other people dying because there are no ICU beds available for them thanks to all the people that made poor choices? Specifically, because those people all made one particular poor choice that's very, very easy to not make.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

It's very definitely not rice, no matter what anyone tells you, but it does the job as a substitute.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Mead posted...

I dont agree, but it might come to this unfortunately

The really annoying part is that, if it does, that'll likely just galvanize the anti-vaxxers that are raging against governmental overreach, rather than encouraging them to get the shot.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Entity13 posted...

Youtube does this once in a while to game music, and then we have to go hunting for it again.

Pretty much. By and large, the uploads are all illegal, so the occasional purge is to be expected.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Ergonomics posted...

O.o porn objectifies women though

That's his point: It's the context in which women are (arguably) expected to be the most objectified, yet black women are underrepresented (at least based on a very subjective, anecdotal assessment), which is the opposite of what this study's conclusion might suggest..

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.

Clench281 posted...

Refuse, no. Triaged with lower priority, maybe.

I could get behind this.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


As much as that's a terrible reflection of what anti-vaxx idiots are doing to the people around them, I can't help but feel like part of the problem there was negligence on the part of the medivac team. There's no reason they couldn't have determined whether or not there were ICU beds available while they were en route to that hospital, and detoured to a different hospital that wasn't at capacity.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.