I’m going to write another comment, because I’m skeptical that you will actually read my original reply.

I think you should self reflect a bit. Your position here was to call me a ‘selfish, horrible person’ because I have found value in being able to rent a house. All the While you are a landlord yourself, deflecting your responsibility and putting me down, someone, who, for all you knew, was a renter them self (the very class whose necks you step on with your property owning foot).

Now, I’m only using language like that because you you have thrown the stone. But I encourage you to reflect.

Do you think that the entire 70 grand is going towards that? Do you consider the occupation of the property to be valued at 0?

Taking your scenario, do the math

What is the cost for your to buy or mortgage the property and the difference of the rent.

That’s where the value difference is. The maintenance is different than the cost to live there. I’m not arguing on fair pricing. But the maintenance side is not the entirety of your rent payment. Its also not the only value.

So you should look at it more like - what’s the value proposition of being able to leave whenever I want, maintenance, etc, vs owning the property.

Either way you are spending a large sum of cash, it’s not a scenario where if you had bought instead of renting you get all 70 grand back.

I think it’s also disingenuous to exclude scenarios that occur outside of your renting scenario. Critical maintenance like utilities, HVAC, and structure usually aren’t done while a tenant is living in the unit (unless there is a specific issue) but the cost is still there. As well vacancy, which is a premium a renter pays for high availability of properties. You can argue that certain costs should or shouldn’t be swallowed, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are there. A prime benefit to renting is that you can leave whenever, that isn’t a physical value, but it exists (you can even break your lease or rent month to month in many cases) try leaving when you are upside down in your house by 100 grand and you got laid off from work. You are absolutely stuck. Maybe you short sell and completely tank your credit, maybe you just eat the cost and ruin your life savings, but unless you can sell your property (which has tons of costs associated with it) then you are SOL.

Slum lords exist yes, but that’s not an intrinsic property of the value proposition at play.

It’s not 70k for the person to change a lightbulb, it’s x dollars to occupy the space, and y dollars to remove your responsibility. The $1500 you are paying is some combination of that. Similar to insurance, you pay a premium to remove a liability, the same applies to renting. I’m not arguing that pricing is fair and just. Just that, the idea of short term rentals have value.

Firstly you don’t know who I am, or my situation.

I know from actual experience (as I have been all three, renter, homeowner, and property manager/landlord) I still prefer renting in many cases. there is a lot of value in renting, including, the ability to be transient, and the lack of attention or care that one needs to keep

I think you are assuming that a landlord just calling a guy is the same as you just calling a guy, and sometimes it is, but when I rent, the value is that I don’t need to care, at all, I just send a text message to the same guy I always send a message to and they come in fix it while I’m at work, and it’s done. I don’t need to make insurance claims, I don’t need to sus out 15 different contractors to get the best price, I don’t need to do the actual work myself, etc

Come back after you’ve owned that duplex for a decade (you evil selfish horrible property owner, as you describe them) and you need to replace the roof and the HVAC system and you will see that it isn’t always the same scenario. Yea fun little house projects are great, and you get to hang pictures on the wall or whatever, but that isn’t valuable to everyone.

Do you really think homelessness issues would be solved by getting rid of the ability to rent property? Have you ever actually worked with homeless people before? In many cases, homeless people don’t want or need to own a house, they want the ability to be transient, to move to where work is, to incrementally improve. A physical house is a burden, it requires maintenance and attention that someone getting on their feet doesn’t necessarily have the time or energy for. Short term living is essential for equitability. Forcing everyone into ownership schemes means forcing people into rigid structures that don’t allow growth. I’ve moved from state to state to state, if I had to buy and sell houses Everytime I moved somewhere I would have lost more money than renting, thanks to economic crashes, closing costs, interest, etc.

I think the problem you have, seems to be extortion in a housing market, driven by large commercial interests, which is pretty different conceptually from the idea of short term leasing of a managed property as a whole. Missing the point and focusing on level of effort instead of looking at the abstract value proposition. I don’t care how much effort something is for someone else if I’m paying them to do the thing, it’s because I find value in it. The same way that doing an oil change is super easy for a mechanic, but I don’t want to do it so I pay someone else. Or making. Sandwich, or whatever.

Unfair prices are not intrinsic to the concept. And I would wager your rage should likely be directed towards unchecked capitalism.

I don’t see an effective system that has private ownership of property and no short term living schemes. I can only see that working with full state intervention, supplying housing for people as they need, which is such a fundamental shift in economic strategy that it isn’t worth discussing. Unless your argument is for communism, in which case, sure, but any landlord discussion is basically useless as the core structure of ownership changes and responsibility changes.

But I dunno, you also seem to be a hypocritical property owner yourself, so i don’t really get your position overall.

In fact I’d say you are the worst kind of property owner. You are using someone else to cover your mortgage, someone you know personally, and so instead of just co-owning the property, you rent to them? Why do you get the equity gains? Why are they paying your mortgage interest, helping your credit, etc.

You have the same energy as ‘the only moral abortion, is my abortion’. Do you think you get a pass on subletting property because you feel you have a morally superior position? Do you think you are not still extracting value? If they are not owners of the property, then they are paying you for the privilege of living in your property, regardless of promises you may make to them or even if you pay them back, you were able to extract time value of money out of them. You are the person you are accusing me of being. But if you think they are getting value from the scenario, than I really have to question your stance as a whole, how do you reconcile this?

Why don’t you sell the other half of the property to the people you think should rightfully own it or refi and add them to the mortgage? If you have an excuse, then maybe you should self reflect on your stance, since there are obviously scenarios, where there is some value in being a landlord.

Look, I get the sentiment.

But conceptually, landlords do present a service.

There is time value in being able to call a singular person and say ‘my stove is broken’ and not have to do anything else.

Yes you can do it yourself if you have the time and skill, it is a hassle finding the right stove, at the right price, getting it delivered or picking it up, finding, hiring, and going under contract with individual people to do installation, managing warranties, etc.

A lot of people don’t want to do that, a lot of people are also comfortable paying a premium to have someone do stuff that they don’t want to do.

There is value in being a broker, and that is a landlords primary job, the maintenance and responsibilities are abstracted away to the renter.

But that is neglecting the performance aspect.

Something like this can be very good for offloading large amounts of data onto a parity backed array either to be moved to a proper long term storage solution later or to be actively worked.

High resolution / bitrate footage comes to mind, where you may be offloading multiple cameras at once and need high write performance.

It’s pretty unlikely that SSDs will have price parity with spinning rust anytime soon, but the value in them has always been performance.

I think most people would just use Windows without activating it

If trump managed to build effective high speed rail that goes coast to coast, hits more than just NYC and LA, and is affordable, I think history would probably end up forgiving him for a lot of shit.

Never gonna happen though.

American style subdivisions are the absolute worst for kids, nothing to do at all.

Walk around the same 5 streets with 150 houses around, get kicked out of all of the common areas by Karens and HOAs.

Kids don’t go outside there either because there is not much of a point, if you’re lucky there may be a tennis court that you can hang out at.

Good luck going to see your friends from school though, even though they live in the neighborhood across the street, the street in question is a 5 lane highway with no pedestrian bridge or tunnels.

Wanna go somewhere with other kids your age, better hope you can have someone drive you.

I remember multiple times my chat switching to SMS when I did not have a stable data connection, though, admittedly, it’s been years since signal dropped support and I don’t remember the specific mechanics of the situation, but I specifically remember the same message chain would have both sms and signal messages in it.

I’ve used signal for at least 6 years now, and I remember online discourse being centered around why signal included SMS in the first place, with most of the discussion being around how people dislike the false sense of security comingling insecure data with secure data provided. The discourse didn’t change until after signal announced they were dropping support and suddenly people came out of the Woodwork talking about how horrible signal is for adopting good security practices.

Why doesn’t telegram or Whatsapp get the same treatment?

I think their logic makes sense though. Signal as an SMS app is functionally pointless. If you can’t convince someone to use signal because they are just using SMS anyway, then what is the point? If you are prostletyzing encrypted communication to people, an important aspect is communicating the why’s. I think sms on the platform ultimately did do more harm than good, it confused the normal people, and presented risks for leaking data, since it was not always clear if hitting the send button would result in an encrypted message or not.

A nice example that is always brought up with signal, is matrix, which perfectly demonstrates the issue at hand. Matrix, which is touted as a ‘secure’ platform, is actually the opposite, it requires positive action to enable and maintain encrypted messaging, and because it allows insecure communication, it opens up tons of holes, either from user error or unclear messaging from the platform. (Things like severe metadata leakage and unclear communication as to what is encrypted or not). There is a reason governments and militaries around the world use signal over other options.

I think you only need to look at the recent Atlantic leaks to demonstrate that users don’t actually know best as well. You have a general user base that has poor security hygiene and the concept of op sec is completely foreign. Confidential group chats would be constantly compromised by one person losing a data connection resulting in the message being sent as SMS and if you don’t have automatic fail over, then SMS support offers no functional benefit, and only serves to add a workload that accomplishes nothing.

Signal has cultivated a platform that has no unclear boundaries. If you send a message on signal, it is e2e encrypted every single time, there is no scenario where this is not the case. That’s more valuable than presenting the option to have an encrypted conversation.

I also don’t really think that is a valid argument, none of signal’s contemporaries offered this feature and it didn’t stop them. I have never heard someone say that they can’t get people to use Messenger, Whatsapp, or Telegram because it doesn’t support SMS.

Another counter point is that signal’s user base has only grown since they removed the SMS feature.

Finally, I don’t think that what you are saying aligns with the previous comment anyway, in fact it seems like it was agreeing with me. The decision wasn’t done because of developer resources, it was a conscious decision they made because they believed that SMS should not be part of their product.

I thought they dropped it because sms is fundamentally antithetical to a secure messaging platform and their view was that sms inclusion was causing confidence issues for their users who weren’t sure if a message would fall back to an unencrypted sms message.

So four barrels every few years, versus a barrel every week or two for gas cars (one barrel nets around 20 gallons of gas) (and still 4 barrels every few years for tires anyway.)

It’s not like you can’t return a body with the 404 that specifies that the user itself is not found versus the ending being wrong.

Yea, I don’t really see a scenario where you are both, making http requests (and therefore care about http responses), and also not able to see the response.

If you are using some wrapper client for an API, you wouldn’t be dealing with the response anyway so it being in json isn’t particularly helpful

Yea, electron has flaws, but it’s basically the only way to make a truly cross platform native and web app. I would rather take a larger installed size and actually have apps that are available everywhere.

The sad truth is there aren’t enough developers to go around to make sleek native apps for every platform, so something that significantly frees dev time is a great real world solution for that.

I don’t get paid to optimize, I get paid to implement features.

I commonly will be in a call with friends, where we all stream the games we are playing independently to each other.

Another use case, one person screen shares YouTube for group watching

And one more, we will often play chess and screen share so others can watch.

This is for a group of 3-10 people typically

It’s fun to talk about.

Vs code has no integrated environment though, it’s just a text editor that supports plugins, you still need to install python or node or .net or Java or gcc, etc.

As far as vim requiring keyboard commands, that’s really only the case if you leave mouse mode off

set mouse=a

And of course, to muddy the water further, we have tools like https://helix-editor.com/ which, more closely approximate vs code, while happening to live in a terminal.

I maintain that in order to qualify as an IDE and not a glorified text editor, you must be able to, out of the box, without external dependencies, run and build the code it was built for (idea/visual studio) otherwise it’s not very integrated, and I don’t think you need to have nice graphics for that qualification.

I would say that an IDE is something that includes build/run tools integrated into it. Everything else is just a text editor. (But that’s just my opinion of course)

To expand on my point, I don’t think it makes sense to call vs code an integrated development environment if it doesn’t actually have the environment integrated.

Visual studio and idea would be examples of IDEs, they actually have all of the tools and frameworks needed to run the languages they were built for out of the box.

You can’t run node or python out of the box with just vs code for example, without their respective tooling, all vscode can do is edit the code and editing code is not functionally different from editing any other text.

So I maintain that both vim and vscode are text editors and not IDEs