Hype your ripe snipes 'n' gripes

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
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 3:57 pm UTC

If you have two people with 40k, that is a household income of 80k, not 40k.
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 4:12 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:If you have two people with 40k, that is a household income of 80k, not 40k.


I always pictured these numbers being structured similarly to taxes; we are two individuals with individual incomes, both homeowners, with our individual property valued at one half of the home's worth, and these things are only combined into one entity if we were married or otherwise combined. But I guess I am wrong now that I look at it more closely.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
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 6:01 pm UTC

Yep. If you have one person earning 20k, a spouse earning 15k, and a teenaged kid earning 5k in a part-time job over the summer -- that is a household income of 40k.
Last edited by Yakk on Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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.

User avatar
UniqueScreenname
Something something Purple. Stop asking.
Posts: 1430
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:11 pm UTC
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby UniqueScreenname » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:15 pm UTC

45k, no?
PolakoVoador wrote:Pizza is never a question, pizza is always the answer.
poxic wrote:When we're stuck, flailing, and afraid, that's usually when we're running into the limitations of our old ways of doing things. Something new is being born. Stick around and find out what it is.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4751
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby poxic » Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:18 pm UTC

(Only if the teenager shares.)
In everyone's life, at some time, our inner fire goes out. It is then burst into flame by an encounter with another human being. We should all be thankful for those people who rekindle the inner spirit.
- Albert Schweitzer, philosopher, physician, musician, Nobel laureate (14 Jan 1875-1965)

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:09 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:If you have two people with 40k
that's a fun evening you have on your hands.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11120
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 7:12 pm UTC

UniqueScreenname wrote:45k, no?

Fixed!
poxic wrote:(Only if the teenager shares.)

And no, I don't think sharing matters.
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.

User avatar
pseudoidiot
Sexy Beard Man
Posts: 5100
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:30 pm UTC
Location: Kansas City
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby pseudoidiot » Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:17 pm UTC

Image
Derailed : Gaming Outside the Box.
SecondTalon wrote:*swoons* I love you, all powerful pseudoidiot!
ShootTheChicken wrote:I can't stop thinking about pseudoidiot's penis.

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 Apr 02, 2013 8:15 pm UTC

bigglesworth wrote:
Yakk wrote:If you have two people with 40k
that's a fun evening you have on your hands.

Is it really fun with only two people? I always thought tabletop RPGs required multiple people.
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
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby bigglesworth » Tue Apr 02, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

There is a 40k RPG but usually it refers to the tabletop wargame.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

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 Apr 02, 2013 9:22 pm UTC

Oh, I had never even heard of that. I assumed you were talking about the RPG.
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
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26510
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:47 pm UTC

This is 40k. Other variations are 40k RPGs.

In that image, the Blue tanky things on the top are one players, the silver hordes on the bottom are another's. Necrons on the bottom versus Space Marines on the top.

And yeah, that's about a fair fight. A transport tank, a regular tank, a heavily armed transport and two regular transports (so only ONE of those tanks isn't packed to the gills with troops) and a dreadnaught (STOMPY FUN) versus Robot Terminators that get up when you kill them, and their own giant tank-thing (the black Monolith on the left side of their line. That's a vehicle.)
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

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 Apr 02, 2013 10:54 pm UTC

40K also has some pretty cool video games. Expect the Necron and Tau are overpowered as fuck. Screw these guys.

At least the necrons have a cool singleplayer ending.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:43 am UTC

Chen wrote: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.

I think I'm adjusting for that, though, in that I'm not looking to buy anything close to a median home here. I'm looking to buy the absolute bottom of the barrel damn well anything it's legal to live in that someone will sell me.* I'd expect someone making a national median income could buy something on the lowest of the low end, even in an expensive area.

*(Provided it satisfies at least one of the two objectives of the whole enterprise, those being: not sharing a space with strangers, and not paying in perpetuity for the privilege of continuing to live there. Condos fail both of those and so are pointless to consider; mobile homes satisfy the first and so are acceptable despite failing the latter; a stand-alone studio "apartment" for sale on its own tiny plot of land would satisfy both well enough, but apparently doesn't exist; and I can't imagine what arrangement could satisfy the second criterion but not the first, unless someone just let me live with them for free or something).

Yakk wrote: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".


This is a good point, which means a lot of the statistics I'm looking at are really useless for the purpose I want them for. I don't care how many houses are owned by their occupants; I want to know how many people own their own homes. I'm comparing myself to other people, not "my" house (where I live) to other houses. Although...

Yakk wrote:Homeowning households have significantly higher income than non-homeowning households


...it looks like income is being calculated per-house instead of per-person anyway...

Puppyclaws wrote: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.

...so apparently the median income I'm comparing mine to includes multi-person combined incomes, so me being single shouldn't make that much of a difference if despite that my single income is comparable to a typical married couple's income. (Which sounds surprising when I say it out loud, but then I spent most of my 20s making half or less what I do now and there's plenty of married 20-somethings, so I guess that's believable).

(Aside: What the hell do families with my income level between them do? I can't imagine a husband and wife with a baby all living in the same tiny room I do together with a bunch of strangers in the house with them. I can't imagine many places would even permit that, even if the family themselves were OK with it, given how strict many places seem to be about even having overnight guests. Never mind that stretching that income to support 2-3 people leaves less to put toward housing in the first place).

As for buying with a partner, that depends on you being lucky enough to have a partner who is both committed enough to you to to do so and has the financial resources to help in the first place. I just came off a four-year nearly-dry spell and am now approaching my first anniversary (of dating, not marriage) with a great girl who I could see some day living together with... except that she only makes $13k/yr and doesn't have much prospect of making significantly more than that any time soon, which means if we are going to live together it'd be almost entirely on me. So she doesn't factor in much to the prospects of my ability to buy, and I don't think "can you help me buy a house" should be a criterion in looking for a significant other, so I'm pretty much stuck doing this alone unless good luck strikes and my girl miraculously starts making a ton more money. Or I turn into a douchebag golddigger and leave her for a rich girl, but that's not going to happen. (Besides, by my age the rich girls all have their trophy husbands already).

Of course, I was also willing to live in a condo (in large part because it has a very low HOA fee).

It's not so much that I'm unwilling to live in a condo, it's that it provides no benefit over comparable alternatives and comes at considerable cost, so it makes no practical sense to do so. Either renting a 1br apartment or buying a 1br condo would provide me with only slightly more privacy than I have now renting 1br in a house, and both would require me continue making payments in perpetuity to continue living there, but the condo would require a very large payment up front in exchange for eventual smaller payments (still comparable to what I'm paying for a room now). If I were to choose between them, I would choose the condo because more of the money I'd be paying toward it would eventually come back to me when I sold it (knock on wood), but as both would push me to my financial limits for very limited benefits (slightly greater privacy), neither seems a good move. If I had the option of buying a condo at comparable rates to what I'm paying in rent right now, I'd jump at it in a heartbeat, but for the little improvement it gets me over what I have already, the cost isn't worth it.

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.

I think you've misinterpreted what I've said about what I am or am not "willing" to do. For condos, see above; for areas to live in, I'm only limiting myself to certain broad geographical areas because that's my home, that's where everyone and everything I know and love lives, that's where I work, and that's where I'm happy. Within that broad geographical area there are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods (and lots of wide open land and weird spots where most people wouldn't want to live but I would be fine if there was somewhere to live there), and I'm not ruling any of them out. So long as I can lock myself in my house and ignore the neighbors when I'm home, and still drive to the areas I know and love when I'm out, I'm fine. So the only places I rule out are places which are so dense that I'm losing the privacy which is half the point of this whole enterprise, or so far away that I'm giving up everything else in my life for the sake of this one aspect.


Anyway, the point of that rant, despite appearances, wasn't supposed to be "woe is me, I'm so much worse off than everyone else", it was "what the fuck is wrong with the world that what should be a basic staple of the average person's life is so completely and nigh-insurmountably out of reach to the average person". I understand that housing in California is expensive; that should mean that an average-priced home in California should be tiny and cheap, not that the average Californian doesn't get a house at all. I'm lamenting the absence of those low-end options, and the artificial limiting of the kind of housing it's even permitted to build to something way more than the average person needs or can afford, leaving a steep wall between renters and owners, instead of progressive little steps to work up to ownership.

And most of all I'm lamenting the existence of rent as a social institute allowing these kinds of conditions to persist. If we threw off the last vestiges of feudalism and didn't recognize contracts obliging someone to pay a permanent fee for the temporary use of something, then rent as a widespread economic instrument would be untenable (not forbidden, just an unsafe business venture), so nobody would ever buy a house just to rent it out, so the demand for housing would go down, and with it the price; the only reason anyone would buy a house would be to live in it, and the only way anyone who owned houses they weren't living in would be able to profit from them would be to sell them, and the only way to sell them would be on terms that people who don't already own houses (who would be the only buyers in the market) could afford. That would both push the cost of existing housing options down more, and push for the development of much smaller, cheaper housing like the kind that's absent (and forbidden to build) now, so that the large existing housing doesn't have to be sold so low.

The ability to rent out housing artificially makes it look acceptable that barriers to ownership are so high, because not owning a home doesn't translate directly into homelessness. But that appearance of acceptability is an illusion. It's not acceptable, it's a fucked up situation, and it's pissing me the fuck off that everyone (not you all necessarily, but so many people) seem to think it's fine for a huge chunk of the population to be effectively bound in serfdom to literal fucking "lords" -- we even kept the feudal title! -- in perpetuity, with no ladder out of that hole. I'm not saying "housing is a right, not a privilege" and that everyone should be given free houses or something like that; I'm saying that the absence of opportunity to even pay their way out for so many people is evidence that something about the system is royally fucked. I'd be happy to live in a tiny shack, so long as it was my shack and I could always count on it, and I could continue working hard to move up to progressively larger and larger shacks until eventually I own something decent. What I'm not happy with is continuing working hard just to tread water crammed into someone else's space with a bunch of other people and a steep wall between that situation and ever being able to rest comfortable that the cold streets aren't just one streak of bad luck away.
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
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 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:21 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I'd expect someone making a national median income could buy something on the lowest of the low end, even in an expensive area.
And you'd be wrong. A crap-tastic, paper-walled townhouse in a shit part of town in the DMV area costs about 3x as much as a well-built, solid-brick house in a decent neighborhood in Western New York. If you want to live in a nice area, you have to either be making the median for the area, be willing to buy a foreclosure or short sale, or be willing to live in a cheap apartment.

Also, I think you're wrong about condominiums. You aren't sharing space with anybody any more than you would be in a townhouse or a free-standing house in a tight neighborhood. The difference between condo ownership and fee simple ownership is what you own. With a condo you own the house itself, but not the land. In a fee simple situation you own both the house and the land, and technically the air above your land up to a certain elevation. If you aren't considering townhouses and condominium ownership when you're looking to become a home-owner, it's no wonder you don't think you can afford to. Free-standing homes are far more expensive then townhouses, and fee simple is generally more expensive then condominium.

Also, you should think about why you want to own. My reasons for owning were to have a little yard, be able to permanently alter my abode, and get money back when I move out. I have no intention of living in my house for the full mortgage, but when I move out, I'll be able to sell it and get back the monthly mortgage payments I've made. The only thing I'm out is the HOA fees.
"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
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26510
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:27 am UTC

The dream of owning your own (freestanding) home works fine when you.. live in medium to undesirable land. If you live in desirable areas... why not buy a condo or half of a duplex or some other method of even partially attempting to combat urban sprawl?

...

Of course, you're still going to be living in crappy condos in desirable areas. Because they're desirable. The whole Location x3 thing of real estate.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Eseell
Posts: 789
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:58 am UTC
Location: WA

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Eseell » Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:29 am UTC

Condos have terrible resale value, at least in this metropolis. I'd never buy one.
"Math is hard work and it occupies your mind -- and it doesn't hurt to learn all you can of it, no matter what rank you are; everything of any importance is founded on mathematics." - Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:25 am UTC

SurgicalSteel wrote:be willing to buy a foreclosure or short sale

I never said I wasn't, and I'm not aware of any reason why anyone wouldn't. This has been about my best and only hope; that since the market is still in the shitter, I might be able to hop on before the train gets back up to speed. Is there some kind of danger to the buyer of buying a short sale or foreclosure? (Also, apparently I had been thinking of a foreclosure as what wiki tells me is now a short sale, and had first heard the term "short sale" when recently informed that a low-priced place I inquired about would actually cost much more than advertised because it was a short sale, which doesn't seem to make sense in light of what "short sale" seems to actually mean. Can you make any sense of that?)

Also, I think you're wrong about condominiums. You aren't sharing space with anybody any more than you would be in a townhouse or a free-standing house in a tight neighborhood.

I'd be sharing at least a wall. The thing that I hate the most about living in a house with other people is that I can hear everything that everyone else does on the other side of my walls. I can't just go into my room and be free of other people's shit. The small air gap between this house and the neighbors' houses however is enough to keep anything they do out of my space. Half of what I want out of home ownership is that air gap.

The difference between condo ownership and fee simple ownership is what you own. With a condo you own the house itself, but not the land. In a fee simple situation you own both the house and the land, and technically the air above your land up to a certain elevation. If you aren't considering townhouses and condominium ownership when you're looking to become a home-owner, it's no wonder you don't think you can afford to. Free-standing homes are far more expensive then townhouses, and fee simple is generally more expensive then condominium.

Yes, I'm aware of that difference as well, which I've said several times is half of why condos don't do anything to achieve my objectives. Besides the privacy of not sharing walls with other people, I want the security of (eventually) not owing a big chunk of money every month for the privilege of remaining in my home. Any situation where I achieve at least one of those objectives would be a step up from what I have now and I would accept that.

A condo doesn't achieve either of them so there's no point. I'm getting the same benefit from paying rent and saving cash, as I would get from paying HOA fees and building equity. (I'm getting slightly less privacy, but I'm also getting much greater flexibility in my savings too, so that balances out). If it weren't for the HOA fees I'd be totally down; I'd basically be living rent-free and using the home equity as a savings account.

Or if there was an air gap, I'd be totally down, which is why I'm looking at mobile homes, where like condos I'd own the home but not the land, but the home wouldn't be attached to another. I'd still be paying rent, but I'd have my privacy. Condos also appear to cost more than mobile homes around here, for less space, so mobile homes are the obvious better option and the one I'm most strongly investigating.

Also, you should think about why you want to own. My reasons for owning were to have a little yard, be able to permanently alter my abode, and get money back when I move out. I have no intention of living in my house for the full mortgage, but when I move out, I'll be able to sell it and get back the monthly mortgage payments I've made. The only thing I'm out is the HOA fees.

I've repeatedly stated my reasons for wanting to own, including again above. Both of them boil down to different senses of "I want a space that is mine":

In one sense, I want a space where I can be blissfully unaware of the existence of other people, be alone, and not see or hear anyone else or anything they're doing. To that end, I want something not attached to anything else.

In another sense, I want a space which I can trust to always be there no matter what kind of hard times I fall upon, especially for when I'm older and unable to work any more. In that sense, I want something owned in fee simple.

Right now I have neither. I'm looking for something where I can get at least one of those things. Condos get me neither. Mobile homes get me the first but not the second. I'm unaware of anything that would get me the second but not the first. And mostly I'm lamenting the absence of a minimal something that would get me both; the only things even on the market that would get me both are way more space than I need, and apparently building something smaller is actually illegal (or I'd buy bare land and have something built myself), and that's just messed up.
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)

Chen
Posts: 5571
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Chen » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:39 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Besides the privacy of not sharing walls with other people, I want the security of (eventually) not owing a big chunk of money every month for the privilege of remaining in my home.


Even owning a regular home you're going to have monthly expenses you will pay in perpetuity, such as property and school taxes. Not to mention things like utilities, and maintenance.

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 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:51 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Besides the privacy of not sharing walls with other people, I want the security of (eventually) not owing a big chunk of money every month for the privilege of remaining in my home.


Even owning a regular home you're going to have monthly expenses you will pay in perpetuity, such as property and school taxes. Not to mention things like utilities, and maintenance.
Not to mention that, unless you buy it outright, a mortgage payment. I imagine the majority of people who "own" their house, actually, technically only own part of it while the bank owns the rest.
"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"

Chen
Posts: 5571
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Chen » Wed Apr 03, 2013 3:24 pm UTC

SurgicalSteel wrote:Not to mention that, unless you buy it outright, a mortgage payment. I imagine the majority of people who "own" their house, actually, technically only own part of it while the bank owns the rest.


Well mortgage payments go away after you're done with it. They seemed more worried about constant payments forever, which is why I mentioned property and school taxes because those don't go away even once the house is actually fully yours.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26510
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:01 pm UTC

SurgicalSteel wrote:
Chen wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Besides the privacy of not sharing walls with other people, I want the security of (eventually) not owing a big chunk of money every month for the privilege of remaining in my home.


Even owning a regular home you're going to have monthly expenses you will pay in perpetuity, such as property and school taxes. Not to mention things like utilities, and maintenance.
Not to mention that, unless you buy it outright, a mortgage payment. I imagine the majority of people who "own" their house, actually, technically only own part of it while the bank owns the rest.

That's.. not legally accurate, though it may be helpful to think of if that way.

Even with a mortgage, you own the house. Period. End of story.

You have a monetary debt that you owe to a banking institution. The collateral for the debt is the house.

But you own 100% of it.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

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 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 4:30 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
SurgicalSteel wrote:
Chen wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:Besides the privacy of not sharing walls with other people, I want the security of (eventually) not owing a big chunk of money every month for the privilege of remaining in my home.


Even owning a regular home you're going to have monthly expenses you will pay in perpetuity, such as property and school taxes. Not to mention things like utilities, and maintenance.
Not to mention that, unless you buy it outright, a mortgage payment. I imagine the majority of people who "own" their house, actually, technically only own part of it while the bank owns the rest.

That's.. not legally accurate, though it may be helpful to think of if that way.

Even with a mortgage, you own the house. Period. End of story.

You have a monetary debt that you owe to a banking institution. The collateral for the debt is the house.

But you own 100% of it.
Well, yes that's true. The president of Wells Fargo can't come into my house and say "I own that wall, I want to knock it down." But Pfhorrest mentioned wanting to be in a situation where a string of bad luck wouldn't land him in the streets. Which, unless and until you have the house totally paid off, you're going to lose it if you can't make your mortgage payments for too long.
"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"

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

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Puppyclaws » Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:57 pm UTC

Pfhorrest, it would appear my post misfired. My intent was not to blame you or to offer you solutions. I meant it as a positive, "this is how lots of people own property and maybe what is different about you (but not things you should change about yourself)," but that is not really how it came across. Anyway. I agree with you, it is infuriating at times that so much of my work is spent just trying to make enough money in order to have a place to sleep at night. I hate to say it doesn't feel very different now than it did when I was renting, in part because so much of what I am paying is interest I will never get back, and I am thinking I want to leave this city sooner than I had planned on. But if you were buying for the long term and knew you were staying, it might feel different.

Pingouin7
Posts: 91
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:50 pm UTC
Location: ~/

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Pingouin7 » Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:31 pm UTC

Giant Speck wrote:As much as I really don't want to, I think I may have to switch from Firefox to Chrome.

Same, but for a different problem. For some reason, whenever I'm multitasking Firefox + anything else, Firefox lags a lot.
Dason wrote:
Kewangji wrote:I confess I am actually scared of peanuts, and tend to avoid them, given how lethal they are to some people.

I'm not. I do my part in the fight against peanuts by destroying them with my powerful teeth. Take that peanut! How does being digested feel!?

User avatar
gingermrkettle
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:00 pm UTC
Location: Suburbia

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby gingermrkettle » Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:44 pm UTC

Update from previous pant:

Do not advertise jobs as being open (and keep readvertising them every couple of months with the same description) if you are not going to appoint someone. You are lying to people, it is at best unethical, devious and I would bet a way of just getting money for you, and at worst and most likely it is illegal. You are a disgrace to the company you represent, and I do not know why the pay you. Do they not know how appalling you are? Surely someone (unless they are being paid without doing any work by not appointing anyone, which could well be likely) will go through the process and mention that you are utterly, utterly useless.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Isaac Hill » Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:49 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote: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.
Later, Pfhorrest wrote:In one sense, I want a space where I can be blissfully unaware of the existence of other people, be alone, and not see or hear anyone else or anything they're doing. To that end, I want something not attached to anything else.

In another sense, I want a space which I can trust to always be there no matter what kind of hard times I fall upon, especially for when I'm older and unable to work any more. In that sense, I want something owned in fee simple.

Right now I have neither. I'm looking for something where I can get at least one of those things. Condos get me neither. Mobile homes get me the first but not the second. I'm unaware of anything that would get me the second but not the first.
If you bought a house and rented out the rooms you weren't using, that would provide the ownership security you want, but not the isolation. You'd still have to deal with other people, but as their landlord, you'd have some say over acceptable noise levels and such. Plus, since you're 30 now, with a 30-year mortgage the place would be paid off by the time you retire, so you wouldn't tenants then.

If you're willing to live in a small space to get that air gap, maybe look for a house with a detached garage. Fix up the garage as your living space and rent out the entire house.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

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 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:13 pm UTC

Goddam motherfucking IT department pushing useless fucking piece of shit updates that fuck every fucking thing up. "Hey, let's push this fucking useless fucking update that will break all your shit and make you spend half the fucking day fucking rolling back these fucking changes so you can fucking work! And while we're at it, let's make the updater close your fucking browser and delete the fucking cache so that you lose all the fucking reference material you were fucking using!" God-fucking-dammit mother fucking shit fucks.
"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
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

On that note, I don't understand the absurd number of software updates that want me to quit all open browsers. When MS Office has an update, why the fuck do I need to close Firefox, Safari, and Chrome? What the fuck is Office doing that has any relation to my web browsers? And can't it do it in the background and let the browsers get whatever changes it made next time they load? It's not like Flash or something where the reason I'm installing it is likely because something in the browser needs it right now. (Though even that is often untrue as Flash updates come at random and not just when something needs a newer Flash version).
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
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

Speaking of chrome, why have all the menus gone huge and why can't I change it back?

now all my muscle memory gone to finding my bookmarks is completely wrong and it's really annoying. Does anyone know of any plugins/extensions/skins that change the menu size back to how it used to be?
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Xeio » Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:58 pm UTC

Beta\Dev channel or...? Haven't seen anything odd in stable.

You could try Ctrl+0 if you set the zoom level off, but that doesn't affect bookmarks that I know.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Giant Speck » Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:02 pm UTC

Chrome generally doesn't let you change aspects of the interface such as text size, menu size, etc. It's one of the reasons I still use Firefox, because I can use userstyles to do stuff like that.
"Did I say recently that I love Giant Speck? Because I love Giant Speck. He is the best." - Weeks
BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:07 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Beta\Dev channel or...? Haven't seen anything odd in stable.


I'm on stable. Maybe yours isn't up to date or they've rolled it out in stages like fb.

Giant Speck wrote:Chrome generally doesn't let you change aspects of the interface such as text size, menu size, etc. It's one of the reasons I still use Firefox, because I can use userstyles to do stuff like that.


*sadface*

They're huge. Part of the reason I liked chrome so much was the minimal interface which took up very little screen space, but now if I want to go to fb I have to cover up half my web page. It's ridiculous.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Whelan » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:07 pm UTC

It's stressing me out as well. So much bloody whitespace, and my other bookmarks folder now needs to be scrolled!
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

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 » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:17 pm UTC

In the settings for Chrome, there's an 'always show the bookmark bar' option, as well as the ability to customise font and text size.
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
Whelan
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16 pm UTC
Location: Londonshire.

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Whelan » Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:22 pm UTC

Font and text size settings don't apply to menus, only page content.
"I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth; I have a horror of blinding people with science"- Richard Dawkins
Weeks wrote:
TaintedDeity wrote:And all I get is this tame space dragon. Where's my recognition?!
A tame dragon is its own reward.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby eSOANEM » Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:29 am UTC

Also, the bookmarks bar isn't the problem, it's the other bookmarks menu or the drop-down when the bookmarks bar has overflowed which are way too big.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Chen
Posts: 5571
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Chen » Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:20 pm UTC

Speaking of Chrome rants, the new menu change also made is extremely hard to see the menu item I'm highlighting now. I've had the same issue with Gmail when they switched format ages ago. Anyone know how to make that part darker? I thought it was a brightness issue but I can't find any settings for that anywhere.

User avatar
Giant Speck
Bouncy Sex Marshmallow
Posts: 3819
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Giant Speck » Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:53 am UTC

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

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Pant Thread (because we need more panting)

Postby Xeio » Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:04 pm UTC

Still hasn't hit my home computer but has hit my work one.

I'm wondering if they'll be themable, but either way they probably need to tone down the empty space.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 25 guests