Blistering blue barnacles

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby roband » Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:28 am UTC

ahammel wrote:Me: "Actually I listen to classical music mostly."
Other guy: "Oh yeah? I guess some people find it relaxing."
Me: :evil:

Why? I find classical music relaxing.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Adacore » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:35 am UTC

I think the implication is that all classical music is of the 'relaxing as a code for boring' variety, when there's actually a huge range out there, some of it relaxing, other pieces really exciting, just generally evocative, whatever.

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby roband » Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:39 am UTC

Oh ok. To be fair, my sole experiences come from "nothing decent on my normal radio presets, let's try ClassicFM.. Oh, I should listen to stuff like this more often".

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby styrofoam » Thu Mar 21, 2013 1:23 pm UTC

I'm giving that asshole hell every night from now on until he decides that reasonable compromise is a more appealing option than stonewalling and suffering the consequences. If I hold back the consequences that will never happen, so, fuck you dude -- here come consequences. Prepared to be as miserable as I am, you inconsiderate asshole. And sorry everyone else for the collateral damage, but it's unavoidable.

*clap* *clap* *clap*
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby ahammel » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:16 pm UTC

roband wrote:Why? I find classical music relaxing.
What Adacore said. I found it a bit condescending.

It's also inaccurate in that 'relaxation' is not the intention of all, or even most, classical stuff. See? Not even slightly relaxing.

Other guy probably unfamiliar with the genre and not trying to be a dick. I suppose that could have been a teaching moment, but I was annoyed so I just changed the subject.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby roband » Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:23 pm UTC

Can't click on that link right now, but I get your point.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1810
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:47 pm UTC

For fuck's sake. Fuck Fuck fuck fuckity fuck.

If you are terrified of driving, you should not drive. Especially not when it is snowing, has snowed recently, or the pavement may be wet, because then, you stupid bastard, you panic, and that makes you do stupid fucking things like speed up, slam on the brakes, spin wildly out of control, and smash your $200 piece of shit so-called 'vehicle' into my car, which I cannot afford to fix.

Oh, what's that? You don't have insurance? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING WITH A CAR THEN, YOU ASSHOLE?!?

Fuck.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Diemo
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:43 pm UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Diemo » Thu Mar 21, 2013 5:58 pm UTC

Prosecute him/her. Driving without insurance is illegal in places that I know about
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
--Douglas Adams

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1810
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:46 pm UTC

Diemo wrote:Prosecute him/her. Driving without insurance is illegal in places that I know about


Oh, that'll be happening. I fucking hate cars.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby broken_escalator » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:40 pm UTC

It seems like the HR division at my work attracts a certain kind of employee. Most of them gossip and act rude to each other constantly. Where other divisions have team lunches and occsional happy hours, they have mandatory training seminars on how to act decent. What is even more comical is most of the problem employees weren't going because "they didn't need it." Hah!

I just feel sorry for the rest of the HR division, it's bad enough only interacting with these bad apples once in a blue moon, I can't imagine working with them every day.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7554
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby phlip » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:45 am UTC

Everything I know about HR I learned from this book.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby brenok » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:57 pm UTC

I hate when this happens:

Spoiler:
Image

Seriously, why don't they make so that all puzzles are solvable? So close...

User avatar
3rdtry
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:46 pm UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby 3rdtry » Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:40 pm UTC

brenok wrote:[pic]


Offtopic, but: please disable the "favorites" bar since you're clearly not using it and it's taking up space.

Also I suppose making minesweeper games solvable might be more difficult than it seems.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4713
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby poxic » Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:02 pm UTC

I've heard of a Minesweeper version someone made that is guaranteed to give solvable setups. Of course, they also built in rules such that guessing guarantees blowing up.

LMGTFmyself: seems there are a few kicking around, though I can't find the one that punishes guessing. Here's a sample: http://sourgumdrop.org.uk/minestein_1.html
All empires fall.
Don't look back.
- The Secret Knots

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7554
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby phlip » Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:10 am UTC

3rdtry wrote:Also I suppose making minesweeper games solvable might be more difficult than it seems.

Solving Minesweeper is NP-complete (also, Minesweeper on an infinite board is Turing complete, which is one of my favourite TC models). However, at all reasonable board sizes that show up in actual games, it can be solved readily enough.

Also, I think you're looking for Mines-Perfect.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby yurell » Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:16 am UTC

Does the old trick of closing minesweeper so that it saves, re-opening it, guessing and if it's a mine immediately hit alt+F4 so that you can load your last save still work?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4713
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby poxic » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:23 am UTC

For whatever reason (maybe a DX9/DX11 compatibility issue?), changing the gamma slider in Dragon Age 2 does nothing to change the screen brightness. I move the slider brighter or darker, there is a momentary change in brightness, then the screen quickly reverts to the "normal" amount of brightness. Regardless of the setting on the slider.

I don't recall this being a problem before my new video card. Yet searching around everywhere I can think of, there is no discussion of this (apart from one person on the BioWare forums not being believed because ze's being a bit of a dick).

- I can't post a topic on the BioWare forum because the Origin login mechanism is busted/doesn't like Firefox/whatever. (Javascript and cookies enabled, yes.)
- I can't get to EA/Origin online help service because the Origin login mechanism is busted/doesn't like Firefox/whatever.
- There is NO EMAIL ADDRESS ANYWHERE on the EA/Origin help page because you're supposed to use the online help service or the forum.

I hate the world sometimes. And this is only computer games.


(Edit for further arsification: it is indeed the video card and/or driver, and not the game. *Any* attempts at gamma correction outside the nVidia control panel are immediately nullified back to "normal". Except last time I tried to update the driver, my display was borked for days until I scrubbed the installation clean and went back to an older version.

And here I thought ATI was buggy as hell.)
All empires fall.
Don't look back.
- The Secret Knots

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby The Scyphozoa » Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:47 am UTC

Oh, at first I thought it could be that the game was applying its HDR eye adjustment AFTER the gamma slider. That would explain why the brightness changed momentarily and then reverted.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Menacing Spike » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:35 pm UTC

google what are you doing

if you want to remove the new and exciting 'let's fill 90% of your results with irrelevant """similar""" searches lolololol' feature, use this link to force "verbatim mode"
https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&comp ... 1&tbs=li:1
This will make google answer your queries with results actually related with your query
this also disables the less insane, but still annoying "showing results for"

what the fuck were they thinking

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Adacore » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:33 pm UTC

Menacing Spike wrote:google what are you doing

if you want to remove the new and exciting 'let's fill 90% of your results with irrelevant """similar""" searches lolololol' feature, use this link to force "verbatim mode"
https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&comp ... 1&tbs=li:1
This will make google answer your queries with results actually related with your query
this also disables the less insane, but still annoying "showing results for"

what the fuck were they thinking

Most people are terrible at searching, so Google is compensating for that, mostly. Also, doesn't just using quotes still work to give exact matches? It always seems to be giving me an exact result. For example, a search for "Marilyn Monroo" gives me the first results for exactly that, with a 'did you mean' in case it was a typo.

I use the 'did you mean' function a fair bit for spell checking and when I can't remember someone's exact name.

User avatar
The Scyphozoa
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Sector 5

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby The Scyphozoa » Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:09 am UTC

Yes, it would seem that a search term that would normally give "showing results for" will instead do a "did you mean" if I put quotes around it.
Image
3rdtry wrote:If there ever is another World War, I hope they at least have the decency to call it "World War 2: Episode One"

doogly wrote:murder is a subset of being mean

elminster
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:56 pm UTC
Location: London, UK, Dimensions 1 to 42.
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby elminster » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:52 pm UTC

People who are subtly dickish then make it out like you're the bad guy when you call them out. E.g. Someone describing how you're something bad, you call them out saying "Hey, that's not the case, I don't know why you're being a bit of a dick", and they reply "Woah, why so aggressive today? You need to go calm down".
Poor example, but essentially that format.

Also, people who are passively dickish, but don't really do enough to call them out on it. E.g. Often interrupting, positioning themselves in groups so they're standing in front of you, etc. Although it's very simple to not do that, when you mention it to some people they're like "Ok Mr. I-Want-to-always-be-talking" then proceed to deliberately interrupt you more. I actively make sure that I don't talk too long, but that kind of childish response just tries to incriminate you.

Then there's cases similar to the above where people are just dismissive towards you in general. E.g. Helping someone at their request, and disrupting the help by constantly grabbing the attention of the person I'm trying to help during the short period that I'm explaining something. It's like... I don't HAVE to help anyone, so why not just let me help them. I can't even blame the person that I'm helping that much since you can't always just ignore someone talking directly at you.

Rant about same person.
Oddly, I'm almost certain that it's almost entirely lack of thought (or ability to focus on more than 1 thing) rather than actively aggressive. Can't really feel contempt for people simply because they don't have the capacity to think about most things in the same breadth and depth as I and others do.
Sometimes I do kind of wish I wouldn't calculate the end point of any given aggression so logically, especially when looking at it from a utilitarian point of view. You can just sit there and break things in your mind for 100% cost savings over breaking something. Far less criminal as well.
Image

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:
Menacing Spike wrote:google what are you doing

if you want to remove the new and exciting 'let's fill 90% of your results with irrelevant """similar""" searches lolololol' feature, use this link to force "verbatim mode"
https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&comp ... 1&tbs=li:1
This will make google answer your queries with results actually related with your query
this also disables the less insane, but still annoying "showing results for"

what the fuck were they thinking

Most people are terrible at searching, so Google is compensating for that, mostly. Also, doesn't just using quotes still work to give exact matches? It always seems to be giving me an exact result. For example, a search for "Marilyn Monroo" gives me the first results for exactly that, with a 'did you mean' in case it was a typo.

I use the 'did you mean' function a fair bit for spell checking and when I can't remember someone's exact name.


I don't know, Google search has actively gotten worse for me. To the point that I sometimes seek out other search services. When I search for "criticism of X," I am not looking for "reviews of X," for one example of something that I get all the time. And there are some pretty serious (and obvious) problems when words like "mail" are replaced with words like "post." I want words and terms that surround "criticism" and "mail," so I can't use quotation marks, but not using them means that I get terms that are so far off, that the content I am looking for is buried to the point that I cannot find it.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:09 pm UTC

If you search using operators and phrases you'll typically get much better results. You can subtract words, use OR, and phrases (with wildcard).

Example: mail -post criticism -review

User avatar
Menacing Spike
Posts: 2982
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm UTC
Location: Fighting the Zombie.

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Menacing Spike » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:If you search using operators and phrases you'll typically get much better results. You can subtract words, use OR, and phrases (with wildcard).

Example: mail -post criticism -review


It's still shit from an usability standpoint.

Use the link I provided as a default search.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:31 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:If you search using operators and phrases you'll typically get much better results. You can subtract words, use OR, and phrases (with wildcard).

Example: mail -post criticism -review


At some point, especially because I will find myself removing three or four words from a search because there is not just one problem term in Google's algorithm or whatever (and I want things that have those words in them, just not primarily; e.g. I can't search for -post if I am looking for internet posts where other people talk about mail, and the best criticism may be a highly critical review buried under hundreds of positive ones), it is easier to go to Yahoo and put up with an ugly interface and suboptimal results (suboptimal compared to Google at its peak some years ago, that is).

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Роберт » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:03 pm UTC

Puppyclaws wrote:I want words and terms that surround "criticism" and "mail," so I can't use quotation marks, but not using them means that I get terms that are so far off, that the content I am looking for is buried to the point that I cannot find it.

That doesn't make sense. Why can't you use quotation marks?

Link
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
3rdtry
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:46 pm UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby 3rdtry » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:27 pm UTC

Economists should stop drawing their graphs sideways.

"Hmm, how can we show that demand decreases when the price increases?"
"Let's put prices in the vertical axis!"
"Genius!"

User avatar
ArchaicHipster
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 11:47 am UTC
Location: Scotland

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby ArchaicHipster » Wed Mar 27, 2013 3:08 pm UTC

Fuck me, but I hate people. Or this one person, mostly. He's a really, really funny guy, and fun to be around - except when he is being horrifically sexist/homophobic/any other kind of prejudice seemingly designed to piss me off. To borrow a phrase from Terry Pratchett's Jackrum, "Upon my oath, I am not a violent man, but Christ on a crutch this dude makes me want to do murder."

GAH.
“It is in the deserts and high places that religions are generated. When men see nothing but bottomless infinity over their heads they have always had a driving and desperate urge to find someone to put in the way.”
-Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3808
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Giant Speck » Tue Apr 02, 2013 1:03 am UTC

As much as I really don't want to, I think I may have to switch from Firefox to Chrome. Ever since I upgraded my internet package, every other page loads as a jumbled mess of characters and images. I don't have this problem in Chrome. It only appears to be affecting Firefox, and I don't know why. I've tried loading a new profile, but I still get the same loading problems.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks

User avatar
SurgicalSteel
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:18 pm UTC
Location: DMV, USA

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby SurgicalSteel » Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:23 am UTC

I dropped a 5-gallon glass carboy on my foot this weekend. Thank god it was only a quarter full. I can walk without pain now, but any pressure on top of my big toe still hurts like hell.
"There's spray paint on the teleprompter
Anchorman screams that he's seen a monster (mayday)
There's blood stains on his shirt (mayday)
They say that he's gone berserk."
--Flobots "Mayday"

User avatar
tastelikecoke
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:58 am UTC
Location: Antipode of Brazil
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby tastelikecoke » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:14 am UTC

Giant Speck wrote:I think I may have to switch from Firefox to Chrome.


They share a lot of extensions, so a transition would be easy, except if it's the Google part of Chrome that's bugging you.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4888
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:19 am UTC

Why do I get the feeling more and more that I still live in a feudal society designed to keep the serfs forever bound in serfdom, the only difference from real feudalism being that I work one lord's land and live on another's? I'm referring here to the increasingly-apparently insurmountable barriers to real home ownership, leaving me stuck apparently forever on the treadmill of working predominantly just so that I don't get thrown out into the street, and facing the apparently inevitable prospect of getting thrown out into the street some day when I'm too old to work anymore.

I come from a poor family and have always had shitty living conditions. The house I was born into was condemned before my earliest memories. I remember in kindergarten visiting friends' houses and marveling at how much nicer their living conditions were; I've had this wonderful image of how "normal people" live in my mind ever since. Throughout elementary school my family rented a house which I thought was marvelous as a child, and for a time I forgot that we were poor, because it was like the big abandoned mansions you'd read about or see in kids' adventure stories, the kinds of houses that are easy to believe are haunted (it had an actual trap door to an apparently bottomless pit! and an old broken fountain with mermaids riding sea horses! and my room had once been the house library!), but looking back on it with my adult eyes now it was a dilapidated old ruin. We moved out of there around junior high when my dad started buying a mobile home on a little plot of land down the road from there. As it was a one-bedroom trailer, I lived in a building adjacent to the mobile home, which I realize in retrospect was literally a tool shed: concrete floors, cinderblock and plywood walls, and a tin-and-plywood roof.

As I became a young adult I dreamt of someday living in a house with real goddamn carpeting on the floor, insulation, and heating, somewhere that doesn't flood every time it rains -- that "how normal people live" image surfacing once again. When I was 21 my dad wanted to start charging rent to live in the tool shed, so I told him to fuck off and finally bit the bullet of renting a room in someone else's house in the next city over, closer to work and school. For a time it was worth it: it was a real house, with the carpeting and heating and all that! I was living like a normal person, all on my own like an adult! Well, except I was completely beholden to the stranger whose house it was, got yelled at for having my girlfriend over (seriously? a guy's supposed to be some kind of rich fuck with his own fucking house or something if he wants to have a love life?), and generally had to hide in my room all the time. After a year or two there, I found my way into another house where I've been ever since, where there's no landlord on-site; but that has left me dealing with all the random fuckers who move in and out and can completely ruin the house with impunity because the landlords can't take any action but to end the lease and evict us all, and I can't take any action because they're co-equals on the lease with me. So again I find myself hiding in my room, or worse now hiding away from the house at work until the middle of the night when everyone's asleep because loud shitheads play booming base so loud I can't even hide in my room and avoid it.

Most of that time I've been working for pretty shitty wages. Better than minimum wage, so I guess I can't really complain, but not enough to really live like an adult on. Part of that time was because I was still in school (I started late since I had no guidance on how to get started, and then switched majors, so I didn't graduate until I was 25), so that's acceptable I guess. Then right after I graduated at the end of 2007, the economy tanked, and it took me three years to finally move out of the dead-end job I had worked through college and on to a real career. All that time I dreamt of the day I would some day "be middle class" and stop living in one little bedroom in a house full of strangers paying off someone else's mortgage with the majority of my income; the day I could buy some tiny little corner of the world to have all to myself, to have the tiniest, tiniest little foothold that I could call "mine" and fall back upon when everything else inevitably went to shit as it always does.

Now I'm 30. Apparently I make around the median income now, at ~$44k/yr (all stats here are from memory, feel free to correct me), so I guess I'm officially "middle class" now? Median income means half of Americans make less than me, right? All the people I meet, including most of my coworkers and all of my friends, basically everybody but bosses, ex-bosses, and other people a generation older than me, make less than I do, so I'm feeling pretty well-off overall, like I shouldn't be complaining, or at least, that I have no right to complain. But apparently something like 75% of Americans own their own home? (Actually, please someone check these stats; I'm too depressed to do it right now). So why the fuck can't I, if half the people making less than me can? I have $15k in savings now, growing at about $10k/yr because I still live hardly any better than a college student and have the cheapest rent in town (which is why I put up with the shitheads there and don't move elsewhere; average rent here is 1.5-2X what I pay for a comparable situation, and would eventually have comparable problems). I could comfortably put $10-15k down and $1-1.5k/mo toward something. That could barely get me a 1br apartment, which would solve some of my privacy problems, though I'd still be in a complex sharing walls with other people, and I'd still be throwing all my money down a hole enriching someone else at the expense of ruining any chance I have to save for a down payment on something of my own.

So I'm looking to buy something. Anything. A single 12x12 room with a bathroom and kitchen and parking spot would suffice, but apparently it's not even legal to build something that small? Fuck, I'd try to buy a bare scrap of dirt and pay to have that built new myself, even skipping the kitchen and bathroom for a start, if it were allowed... and if a bare scrap of dirt weren't already hundreds of thousands of dollars at least. But no, apparently single people don't get to live in places of their own, unless they want (and can afford) a bunch of unused rooms. If you want to live in a real fucking house, you gotta be a married couple with three kids, yeah? Because fuck single people I guess, let's not even allow the building of things suitable for them.

I know there's condos, but they have all the problems of apartments, including HOA fees which are basically rent and so don't solve the problem of paying a big chunk of money every goddamn month just for the privilege of not getting thrown out into the street, so that's a net negative. Yay, I can effectively rent an apartment with a $200k deposit, whoop-de-fucking-do, why the fuck would I do that.

So I'm looking at mobile homes; yeah there's still land rent there in a mobile home park, but that's comparable in price to rent on a room, and I'd get a whole house-sized place to myself, plus the park facilities, which makes it worth it compared to where I am now. Except around here they're the same cost as an ordinary house is anywhere else in the country, about $150k on average, which would take everything I'll have in savings by the end of the year for a down payment, and with principle and interest and insurance and PMI and land rent and property taxes and blah blah blah all piled on it would have me living check-to-check with no safety net, and one small medical or automotive problem away from missing a payment and losing it all.

I'm looking at the surrounding cities too. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country, I know that, but I figured a middle-class guy out to at least be able to live in a trailer park here, right? But apparently not, so let's look nearby where it's a little cheaper, k? At first glance I was seeing mobile homes in surrounding cities selling for under $50k, which seemed very doable. I even saw one place going for under $28k, with land rent in the $300 range, in my old home town, in a park where I had friends as a kid! I was really excited about that, and contacted a realtor to ask about it; I can put 40% down now and pay it off in a year or two! Except he tells me, for one, it's already in escrow, and two, that place was a short-sale, which apparently means it's really going for a whole lot more than the price I saw, and finally, that an average mobile home in that area is over $100k still, land rent is more up in the $700-800/mo range, and most parks require you be 55 or older. (What the fuck is with that? Yes, I understand that old people who can't work anymore are in need of cheaper housing... that's what I'm afraid of ending up as, and is a major reason why I'm trying to stop fucking throwing my money down a hole renting and get into ANYTHING, fucking ANY GOD DAMN THING I CAN POSSIBLY OWN, NOW, and not spend my entire fucking life still living like a college student while trying to avoid that prospect only to finally be allowed to live in a fucking trailer park by the time I retire.)

I know, I could always give up everyone and everything I've ever known and loved in the area I was born and want to live the rest of my life, and go live in a trailer in the middle of nowhere in Bumfuck Montana. But it doesn't seem fair that I should have to leave my homeland and go to what in most other parts of the world would be another fucking country, all because a bunch of rich old fucking bastards want to live where I was born and make it impossibly expensive for the kids who grew up here to get even the tiniest foothold. Seriously, can't I at least have my fucking old toolshed-room with the insulation and leaks fixed and a toilet and shower stall in it? I don't even need a wall between them and the rest of the room! I can eat out of a mini-fridge and microwave and buy a cheapo little heating unit. Just get me the fuck out of serfdom and being packed in one thin wall away from a bunch of other people!

Meanwhile dad still lives in the old trailer, though he's having to sell it because he can't even afford the interest-only mortgage. Mom is disabled and can barely afford to rent a room in someone else's house herself. Dad's parents are dead, and he estranged all his siblings long ago so I have little connection to them. Mom's dad is filthy rich but completely senile and all his estate is controlled by his third or fourth wife, who basically disowned his entire family including his first wife and all their kids; so mom's mom is more broke than mom is, living on her son's couch, and mom's siblings are all barely taking care of themselves. I have nobody to help me get a foot up, and nobody to fall back on if I fall. I'm all alone in the world, and if I fail, as looks increasingly inevitable, I'm going to die alone in the streets some day.

Fuck the world, and fuck the fucking shitheads who dare think themselves "lords" of the land that everyone should have reasonable access to.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2014
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Deva » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:52 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:But apparently something like 75% of Americans own their own home? (Actually, please someone check these stats; I'm too depressed to do it right now).

Only 67.4% overall (as of 2009. Decreased to about 65.1% in 2010). Rises to 75% for non-Hispanic Whites. Dives to 45-50% for Hispanic, Latino, and African Americans.

Notes higher concentrations of renters in cities, compared to metro areas. Outnumbered homeowners in populous cities.

Code: Select all

City         Percentage of Renters

New York        69.0%
Los Angeles     61.8%
Chicago         55.1%
Houston         54.6%


Increases for married couples, likely due to shared income/expenses.

Additionally,
Wikipedia wrote:Age played a significant role as well with homeownership increasing with the age of the householder until age 65, when a slight decrease becomes visible. While only 43% of households with a householder under the age of thirty-five owned a home, 81.6% of those with a householder between the ages of 55 and 64 did.


Edit for relevancy:
From early 2012 wrote:The percentage of Californians who live in homes that they and their families own dipped to 55.3 percent in 2011, the second lowest rate of any state, just ahead of New York's 53.6 percent.
Last edited by Deva on Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:27 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3808
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Giant Speck » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:08 am UTC

tastelikecoke wrote:
Giant Speck wrote:I think I may have to switch from Firefox to Chrome.


They share a lot of extensions, so a transition would be easy, except if it's the Google part of Chrome that's bugging you.

It's actually the interface that bugs me. You can't really do anything with it other than change the colors, really. With Firefox, I can move around elements and shape the browser the way I want with userstyles.

EDIT: Oh, and I just noticed that I'm experiencing this problem with my iPad, too. Maybe it's something wrong with my internet connection. Again. Ugh.

EDIT EDIT: I've also been getting this error a lot:

Image
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4888
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:28 am UTC

Deva wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:But apparently something like 75% of Americans own their own home? (Actually, please someone check these stats; I'm too depressed to do it right now).

Only 67.4% overall (as of 2009. Decreased to about 65.1% in 2010). Rises to 75% for non-Hispanic Whites.

That must be the figure I was remembering. I'm in that latter category. (Though that doesn't seem to make much of an argument in my favor, as it would boil down to "I'm white! I should be more likely to own a home!" which is, uh... not so nice a thing to put it mildly).

Notes higher concentrations of renters in cities, compared to metro areas.

Do you mean rural areas? To my ear "metro area" means around a city. I don't (and am not looking to) live "in the city" in any sense that people from big cities would think of; specifically, I'm currently in a suburb on the outskirts of the City of Goleta, which I still think of as itself an extended suburb of Santa Barbara (as it was until 2004ish), which I think of as "the city" locally, including the neighboring cities of of Goleta, Montecito, Carpinteria, etc, within the "Santa Barbara" area. I've been looking for housing anywhere in the southern Santa Barbara county area, from Gaviota to La Conchita. I've now extended it southward to the Ventura Country area north of Oxnard, particularly focusing on Ojai which is my home town. At first glance that looked a lot cheaper, but now I'm being told those figures I'm seeing are misleading. I really don't want to live in Oxnard or LA or a big urban area. I want to get away from other people, not closer to them.

Additionally,
Wikipedia wrote:Age played a significant role as well with homeownership increasing with the age of the householder until age 65, when a slight decrease becomes visible. While only 43% of households with a householder under the age of thirty-five owned a home, 81.6% of those with a householder between the ages of 55 and 64 did.

Humm. I was just Googling "average age of first-time home buyer" earlier today and seeing a bunch of figures around the 30-31 range. How does that mesh with these stats? Also, what exactly constitutes a "householder"? Is every kid renting a room a "householder"? Someone renting an apartment? Or only someone renting a whole house to themselves? (If I could afford that, I could afford to buy). I imagine it must include renters of some sort because otherwise 100% of them would be owners, yeah?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2014
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Deva » Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:02 am UTC

Notes higher concentrations of renters in cities, compared to metro areas.

Do you mean rural areas? To my ear "metro area" means around a city. I don't (and am not looking to) live "in the city" in any sense that people from big cities would think of; specifically, I'm currently in a suburb on the outskirts of the City of Goleta, which I still think of as itself an extended suburb of Santa Barbara (as it was until 2004ish), which I think of as "the city" locally, including the neighboring cities of of Goleta, Montecito, Carpinteria, etc, within the "Santa Barbara" area. I've been looking for housing anywhere in the southern Santa Barbara county area, from Gaviota to La Conchita. I've now extended it southward to the Ventura Country area north of Oxnard, particularly focusing on Ojai which is my home town. At first glance that looked a lot cheaper, but now I'm being told those figures I'm seeing are misleading. I really don't want to live in Oxnard or LA or a big urban area. I want to get away from other people, not closer to them.

Assumed "metro area" to be around cities also. Pulled that from here. Checked their definition: "A metro area contains a core urban area of 50,000 or more population, and a micro area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but less than 50,000) population." Fails to define the maximum region size, however. Sees links, likely defining that. In case of curiosity, visit this. Looks unpleasant.

Additionally,
Wikipedia wrote:Age played a significant role as well with homeownership increasing with the age of the householder until age 65, when a slight decrease becomes visible. While only 43% of households with a householder under the age of thirty-five owned a home, 81.6% of those with a householder between the ages of 55 and 64 did.

Humm. I was just Googling "average age of first-time home buyer" earlier today and seeing a bunch of figures around the 30-31 range. How does that mesh with these stats? Also, what exactly constitutes a "householder"? Is every kid renting a room a "householder"? Someone renting an apartment? Or only someone renting a whole house to themselves? (If I could afford that, I could afford to buy). I imagine it must include renters of some sort because otherwise 100% of them would be owners, yeah?

Householder definition:
The householder refers to the person (or one of the people) in whose name the housing unit is owned or rented (maintained) or, if there is no such person, any adult member, excluding roomers, boarders, or paid employees. If the house is owned or rented jointly by a married couple, the householder may be either the husband or the wife. The person designated as the householder is the "reference person" to whom the relationship of all other household members, if any, is recorded.
The number of householders is equal to the number of households. Also, the number of family householders is equal to the number of families.


Found a median of 30 in 1989's US Census. Mentions 30 as "typical" from 2008-2010 in a National Association of Realtors site. Sounds good.

Cannot conclude anything definite. Knows too little about this subject. Conjectures selling/losing your first home to be not uncommon, however.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

Chen
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Chen » Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:50 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Now I'm 30. Apparently I make around the median income now, at ~$44k/yr (all stats here are from memory, feel free to correct me), so I guess I'm officially "middle class" now? Median income means half of Americans make less than me, right? All the people I meet, including most of my coworkers and all of my friends, basically everybody but bosses, ex-bosses, and other people a generation older than me, make less than I do, so I'm feeling pretty well-off overall, like I shouldn't be complaining, or at least, that I have no right to complain. But apparently something like 75% of Americans own their own home? (Actually, please someone check these stats; I'm too depressed to do it right now). So why the fuck can't I, if half the people making less than me can?


I think the discrepancy here is you're looking at median income for the country but comparing it to housing prices in a very expensive area. It also doesn't take into account those who take out more mortgage than they can actually afford, pay it off and accumulate more debt to pay for the rest of their living expenses. Sure those people are homeowners, but they're not very sustainable.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Yakk » Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:01 pm UTC

61,021 is California's median income -- 40% higher than the nation.

California has among the highest house prices, and that is more than 40% higher than the national average. So in California, I expect fewer people can afford to purchase a home.

Homeowning households have significantly higher income than non-homeowning households -- if you are at the national median income, living in a state where the state median income is 40% higher than that, you aren't likely to own a home.

Midwestern states, with comparatively low incomes and much lower house prices, have really high home ownership rates. You don't live there.

Also note that "homeownership rate" is the percent of houses that are occupied by their owner, not the percent of people who live in a house they own. A multi-bedroom rental house where one of the occupants owns the home, and the rest rent, counts as a "owner occupied home".
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Apr 02, 2013 3:41 pm UTC

I am a homeowner at approximately that salary, who had approximately what you have for a down payment. The way I managed it, the way a lot of people manage it, is that I bought with a partner, which has a lot to do with how it is possible for so many people; two incomes. That is a big part of why the number is so high. Of course, I was also willing to live in a condo (in large part because it has a very low HOA fee). So that 66% number counts a lot of people who are willing to do things you are not willing to do. If I were willing to live outside the city, I could have afforded a real house, with carpeting and insulation, on my own. But the market here is different, and that is assuming that I would be willing to live in one of the local towns that are considered...not very safe. I think the way that a lot of people are able to own their own homes is that they do not say "Well, I don't want to live in this area..." or "Well, I don't want a condo..." and the people who live the 'normal' life that you are talking about are actually paid above average and do not represent the typical home owner.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests