Lurker > IdiotMachine

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Exactly. I feel like this will hurt new homebuyers significantly by adding yet another thing you need to have in full cash before being able to buy a house.

Harpie posted...

As far as I understand, sellers were already paying the full 6%: their share and the buyers share.
Now that the realtor fee is on the buyers shoulders, and the commission rate isnt hard set on 3% for each party, the buyer can either negotiate with the seller for them to pay the fee, or the buyer can go through an inevitable budget option at a much lower percentage.
It seems more likely that the seller would still pick up the fee for both parties as a negotiation tool, but now they wont be paying 6%. Itll be likely to be much less.

This new rule benefits literally everyone but realtors lol

As a seller in todays market, I wouldnt budge at all and laugh at the buyer asking me for sellers assist in paying for the buyers agent fees. Besides, sellers assist applies to the mortgage that the buyer is going to get and doesnt equate to direct cash to them. This wouldnt work, unless its an under the table deal.

Finally, the 3% is never a hard set; its just the typical rate. As a seller, the seller can dictate 2.5% for buyer and 3.5% for seller (as an example).

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Thats exactly what happened. A coalition of sellers sold the realtor group to make this change.

Harpie posted...

Isnt it more likely that costs go down, as people wont be willing to pay 6%? I feel like this would open the door to budget realtors, online services, etc

I dont see a reason why the seller would reduce the housing price by 3%.

Doe posted...

I took a negotiations class in college and we did real estate one day and the current system has a really blatant flaw, at least in terms of agent incentives. I feel like in the grand scheme of things the buyer agent's pay is not a top 5 issue for housing prices

Freakonomics talk about how on a surface level, its in the best interest for both agents to make the price of the house as high as possible; however, when looking beyond the surface level, that 3% commission, which agents have to give up half or more to their brokers (so each agent only ends up with ~1.5% in their pocket), is so small and it does not incentivize any of the agent to negotiate harder on your behalf (e.g., why spent a week or more negotiating and working harder to earn just $150 more by raising the sale price by $10k, or reduce your own pay by lowering the sale price).

Doe posted...

I took a negotiations class in college and we did real estate one day and the current system has a really blatant flaw, at least in terms of agent incentives. I feel like in the grand scheme of things the buyer agent's pay is not a top 5 issue for housing prices

Freakonomics talk about how on a surface level, its in the best interest for both agents to make the price of the house as high as possible; however, when looking beyond the surface level, that 3% commission, which agents have to give up half or more to their brokers (so each agent only ends up with ~1.5% in their pocket), is so small and it doesnt incentivize any of the agent to negotiate harder on your behalf (e.g., why spent a week or more negotiating and working harder to earn just $150 more by raising the sale price by $10k, or reduce your own pay by lowering the sale price).

In the US, the seller typically pays 6% in commission, which gets split to both the sellers and buyers agent. Starting this summer, unless the courts reject the settlement, the buyers are now directly responsible to pay for their own agent.

Thats a huge change, and for first time homeowners, the barrier to owning your own home is raised even higher because you need even more cash upfront.

Their Cadillac broke and they wanted to borrow our second car. They said they dont want to deal with a rental car (even though rental car will be covered by their extended warranty), and Cadillac was out of loaners.

Our second car is a 2023 Kia Soul that we rarely drive (purchased in October 2022 as brand new, and we have only 4,000 miles on it). They had it for 10 days. They racked up 850 miles on it (literally over 20% of existing miles). No visible exterior damage, but interior is messy (not dirty, but just has garbage and stuff in it). Interior also smells like cigarette smoke, even though I asked them not to smoke in the car. They also brought the car back with the gas less than 25% full.

Im pretty pissed off about this. I didnt voice this to my parents, but to my wife, and that Im never going to let them borrow this car again. My wife says Im overreacting, and I cant not be there for my parents when they need help.

So am I wrong to be mad about this?

You have to milk them alternatively.

AgentCoulson posted...

We pretending that Mark hasn't found success as a voice actor? I'd say Batman is a bigger franchise than Star Wars.

Did he want to become a voice actor or was that out of necessity because he couldnt find work as an actor?

Its kind of like that Star Wars Anakin dude, who failed after the Star Wars 1, 2, and 3 trilogy. Feel bad for him too.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Alec Guinness was in like a dozen other movies after rotj but it was also like the ass end of his career. Dude was old as dirt. This is like looking up Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino and being like "man that movie really ruined his career"

Mark Hamill was in other movies but his VA stuff was more successful so that's the path he chose to focus on.

Carrie Fisher is the only one who didn't really do much of note and probably didn't feel like she had to because she got a royalty contract.

Euripides posted...

She's also a nepo baby who was rich before she could walk

Oh. Didnt know she was rich anyway. What made her want to become an actress for an unknown movie that was forecasted to fail (but obviously did not)?

Murphiroth posted...

LMAO at Air Force One being bigger than Star Wars. Indiana Jones is closer but still not bigger by any means.

Really had to outdo your first post, right?

Agreed, not bigger, but still a movie. Other guys never even made it into a movie afterwards.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I'm curious here but what movies other than Star Wars did Harrison Ford do that was bigger than Star Wars?

Indiana Jones, Air Force One

And Darth Vader doesnt count, since he was a voice actor.

I mean I havent literally seen Leia or Luke in any other movie except for the modern Star Wars ones that sucked anyway.

Literally everyone but Han Solo / Harrison Ford failed in their careers and didnt amount to anything bigger. Why is that?

LonelyStoner posted...

Just grab a griddle that you can lay over your grill, then. Still, they arent that expensive.

Hmm idk why I didnt think of that. Im sure someone sells a griddle pad or whatever that I can put instead of my grill grates on my propane grill.

LonelyStoner posted...

Electric griddles arent that pricey.

Kamil posted...

You can get a cheap ass griddle for at least 30. It ain't great but they aren't out of reach.

I mean, you need the high heat and the even surface temperature to be able to cook well.

Each time I grill for 2, I think I need to spend like $40:

• Raw protein (e.g., steak, chicken, and shrimp),
• Tremendous amount of oil/butter,
• Sauces (you need like quarter of Mr. Yoshida's sauce per cook, and a bottle of that costs $20!), and
• Propane.

And the upfront cost of getting a griddle is like $600 ($500 + $100 in accessories):
https://www.lowes.com/pd/Blackstone-36-Culinary-Omnivore-Griddle-with-Hood-4-Burner-Liquid-Propane-Flat-Top-Grill/5013690483

There's a fantastic sushi and hibachi table-service buffet by our house that costs $16/person during lunch and $24/person during dinner. The $16 one even includes unlimited steak and chicken hibachi, as well as unlimited sushi. Regardless, that means for two people, it'll cost $40 w/ tip for lunch and $60 w/ tip for dinner.

I feel like I'll never come out ahead if I cook myself vs. going to this buffet for lunch... for dinner, it seems like the break even point ($600 + $40 * x < $60 * x) is 30 cooks. And that's not even including the sushi you get from the buffet!

Bah.

/blogfaqs

To be clear, Im not going to do this with my two cats. I was just randomly wondering if vets will euthanize a healthy pet because the owner asked to do it.

lilORANG posted...

You can put a healthy pet in a kill shelter and they'll take care of it

But thats so horrible for the pet to die alone and scared.

Or will the vet reject the horrible request?

DKJ posted...

Whoa

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/us-warns-imminent-moscow-attack-extremists-urges-citizens-avoid-crowds-rcna142401

That article, posted on 3/8, says:

The U.S. Embassy in the Russian capital said it was "monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours."

3/22 is way further out than 48 hours from 3/8.

No matter the truth of allegiance of these three terorrist, no doubt Putin will say this was Ukraines doing to bolster support for the war with his own people.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/6/632a2585.jpg

VeggetaX posted...

I'm not trying to sound cheeky or anything but the quickest way to make money is to get a job.

The quickest way to sustainably make money, sure. But the absolute quickest way? Fire sale of everything you have of value on FB marketplace. Youll sell stuff in literal minutes.

How much money are we talking about? Is it like $20, or is it like $20,000?

Where someone goes onto someone else's computer, looks around for clues, and guesses the password is the child's name in the photo, the name of a statue that's in the room, etc.

Just make it not-password protected; what's the point wasting like 3 minutes on that bullshit that no one ever does?

UnsteadyOwl posted...

In general when Republicans say things were so much better in the old days they're not talking about tax rates.

But part of the reason why things were better was because of higher taxes which was used for social systems.

UnsteadyOwl posted...

The biggest piece of legislation Trump got passed during his time as president was a huge tax cut for the wealthy. Why would you think he has any intention of raising taxes on the rich now?

He's a hypocrite. MAGA refers to when America was great in the past, which includes raising taxes, but he didnt.

We should tax billionaires 60% like we did in the 60s.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/382198fa.jpg

BobanMarjanovic posted...

I catch and release. Most fishermen I know do that too. However I am from a poorer area and some of the things they do around here are borderline torture (depending on how advanced you think fish are). Some people catch bluegill and just keep them in a plastic bag with barely any water until they take them home.

Why does being poor matter?

Axiom posted...

Ive caught multiple fish that had old scars from being caught mainly large sports fish like largemouth or striped bass

You typically let the bigger ones go to hopefully get bigger late even when fishing to eat. If you want to mount it these days all you need to do is measure and take a picture to get it recreated

As for hurting them well I guess its not enough to keep them from hitting again

Interesting that they heal from a hole in their mouth.

Catch and release is apparently a fishing style where you catch a fish and release it. The fish will still have a hole in its mouth, and will have psychological damage due to being whipped into the heavens when trying to eat a worm, being man handled, and thrown back. Can the fish ever acclimate back to its normal life with this physical and mental damage?

Scardude posted...

Did you make your final decision? I voted no even though I'm getting it later. Not really a big deal and minor issue overall.

When I started this, I was leaning towards it (like 90%). My wife deferred the decision to me since I have a penis and I should know more about this subject than her. While this topic really didnt sway me one way or another, I have since learned a bunch of friends who have had boys literally all decided against their boys being circumcised. That has had a significant impact on my perspective, and am slightly leaning against it (Id say like 40% yes).

Are people advocating for a baby to make their own decisions being serious? Have you ever been with a baby? They cant make decisions lol.

Whats interesting is I started this topic with 95% certainty that I wanted to circumcise our boy (my wife deferred the decision to me since I have a penis and she doesnt), but since then, I talked with my friends who have boys, and learned not a single one of them circumcised their boy. This has now changed my certainty down to like under 50%. Bah.

So I watched Kung Fu Panda 3 in the background, and I have to admit it wasnt racist or low brow comedy. It had heart to it. My bad.

PaperSplash posted...

Sometimes cartoons with stereotypical portrayals of a minority group ironically take off among the minority group in question. Look at Mexicans and Speedy Gonzales.

Thats actually a fantastic comparison. It reminds me of Indians and Apu.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Like if a movie was titled Potato Leprechauns, and it was a movie about Leprechauns chasing after potatoes, itd be fucked up.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I mean how is this any different than listing two obviously ethnic things together for a movie setting?

Axiom posted...

How. Explain in detail why this is kind of racist

Panda is Chinese, Kung Fu is Chinese; isnt Kung Fu Panda just some BS comedy flick that makes fun of Chinese culture?

NightRender posted...

If most of the members signed off on it, there's no need to get offended on their behalf.

The president of the group is a weeb black dude, and the vice president is also a weeb (but Japanese woman). Its hilarious how they run the AAPI.

My works Asian American and Pacific Islanders employee resource group rented out an entire theater for employees to come watch Kung Fu Panda at $1/seat. Isnt that kind of racist?

boomgetchopped3 posted...

They do.

Yea, only at the end big climatic battle. Nowhere else.

Some questions, in no particular order:

1. Harkonnen seems like a macho/strong society. So why would they drug the Atreides prisoners before they have them fight the skinnier nephew?
2. Whats up with the cartoonish evilness of all three Harkonnens, where in almost every scene, they randomly kill their own people? How can that possibly be an effective society? Once or twice out of extreme emotions and to show how evil they are via a common trope, sure; but like every single scene?
3. Why would the emperor come to Dune instead of sending his army and his delegates?
4. Why is the emperors army just standing in formation waiting around? They had no reason to do this- they werent expecting an attack, they JUST arrived, and there is a storm coming (they should have rather been focusing on creating temporary shelters).
5. Why did Paul fire nuclear missiles behind the army, instead directly at them? These bombs dont seem to be world-ending powerful, so strategic missiles against the well grouped army seems to have been a better option.
6. Why would the emperors army decide to go for a charge in an open field with sand everywhere, instead of falling back and creating a solid line of defense?
7. When the line was lost and Paul and his folks got into the emperors chambers, why would the emperors personal guards of like 10 or so decide to walk straight into the door that they cannot even see (because of lots of sand) instead of falling back and bolstering the final defense soldiers?
8. How come majority of these soldiers seem to not have any of those shields up, and the fremen are tearing through them so easily? The first movie made it very clear you have to attack in a specific fast-but-slow method to pierce those shields; its very clear the fremen are not fighting like this, nor were there any scenes that showed them being trained to fight like this.
9. Why would the other great houses not agree to the ascendency of Paul, when hes marrying the emperors daughter, and have spice production (a critical component of the entire galaxy) literally under his control?
10. Paul releases the fremen to go attack the other houses in the air/space. How do the fremen know how to pilot the emperors spacecrafts?
11. Why was Zendaya so bitchy about Paul using his messiah-like influence to bring the fremens together to fight the foreigners? It should be one of us that leads arc makes no sense since clearly they cant do that.
12. I didnt understand the significance of walking through the desert in that dancing way. Why walk like that? If its to avoid the worms, how come they dont always walk like that?
13. If the worms can be summoned so easily, be driven around like trains and devour everything in their path, are bulletproof, and arent harmed by missiles, why havent the fremens used it as a weapon?
14. If the emperor can very easily tell the south has human activity, how did the harkonens miss that?
15. Why was the emperor so quick to get rid of the harkonens (destroying Barons life support and his spine thingy)?

I think that was it when I was watching the movie.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This is what I wanted to know. I actually asked each OBGYN if I can be in the surgery room should we opt for the circumcision, and the answer was no. From my online research, there are three main methods for pain- ones do nothing, another is an injection, and the last is a cream; the hospital were choosing to deliver at is the cream apparently.

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Game Pass is a great deal when you get the 2 weeks (or a month if they still do that) for $1. I've finished like 3 or 4 games for a couple bucks doing that, heh

I'd never pay real money for it though, the windows store has too many shenanigans going on with it like randomly deciding to delete games and account-tying your save games

Or use a VPN and get a foreign one for like $30/year.

emblem-man posted...

What exactly are the adult complications of having foreskin?

I addressed this in the OP:
IdiotMachine posted...

they point out that having a foreskin could lead to problems with retraction due to improper "un-fusing" of the foreskin with the gland or the foreskin being too tight, infections due to poor hygiene, and higher STD rates.

But as I later noted, I have no concept of the likelihood of the probability of any of these. My judgement says it's not likely, because the younger OBGYNs told us that it's mostly done for religious or societal reasons, and not medical reasons.

boomgetchopped3 posted...

They kind of made it seem like a non choice at the hospital. The nurse was just like we have to take him for circumcision, I assume were doing that right? Im circumcised so I just went along with it. I do question it in hindsight tho.

That's not the case for our hospital network. We're told we have to sign documents and determine if we want to or not before the baby is born. We apparently can't change our minds after the baby is born (but can change our minds during labor); if we signed that we're not doing it, but changed our mind after the baby is born, we have to do it out-patient and not part of the OBGYN (but not vice versa; i.e., if we signed we're going to do it, but changed our mind after the baby is born, they'll have us sign to override our previous decision). Not sure why they do it this way...