sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
I like this argument, although I prefer the inverse "I may be ncentivized to be neglectful and cause more damage because it doesn't belong to me."
The landlord holds thousands of my dollars to incentivize me not to cause damage to the unit.
But I begin to think that the average person isn't really going to do much with a place they own that would 'justify' having them own it themselves.
I think painting walls is in the Overton window of things people do to their own houses (edit: or redoing the kitchen/bathroom), but I'd never bother doing this to a rental. It's the ultimate and final cuck. Think about it logically.
And why not just have them subscribe to a service that will do the interior decorating for them? Similar to those companies that do house staging for real estate sales, you could pay for subscription that lets you swap out your decor every 6 months.
So they'll put up wallpaper, I'll pay them a monthly fee for years for nothing (I don't want my wallpaper changed every six months, and I don't want a bunch of strangers in the house every six months either), then they take it down when I leave? Maybe if it was like $10 a year or something but otherwise it's hard for me to see how this is +EV. I could just pay someone to put up the wallpaper and tear it down, and that would probably be more cost effective.
Likewise, many people who own their homes nonetheless pay someone else to mow their lawn
Yeah, but that's a task that needs to be done all the time. People have had maids and butlers for as long as they've had houses, this doesn't really seem to be the same type of thing as paying for a furniture subscription service.
and they rent e.g. their modem and router from Comcast, since its really a hassle to maintain your own hardware.
This is totally bizarre to me and I don't really know why people do it. I've literally never had a problem with a router/modem I bought from Amazon. This is probably the best example of what you are talking about, though. I don't know how many people opt to rent rather than just buy.
Seems like its not so far removed to just rent... everything in your home and then you can also outsource annoying maintenance and repairs.
You already can (in some jurisdictions and some cases, must) outsource repairs. Water leak? Call the plumber. Electric problem? Call the electrician. Floors dirty? Call the carpet cleaners. Etc. what is the benefit of renting my carpets?
As a rentcel, I'm extremely disincentivized from improving anything about the unit I live in because I don't want to put money and effort into improving someone else's asset. For example, my wife would like to put some wallpaper up. But I've put up wallpaper up a few times in my life and it's kind of a pain in the ass. If I were going to enjoy the wallpaper for thirty years or more, that's one thing. If I'm going to enjoy it for a few years before we (inshallah) buy a house, and then we'll need to tear the wallpaper down, it's just not worth it to me. Same for minor maintenance issues around the house that the landlord doesn't give a shit about. I'd much rather have a place that I can do what I want with.
The film analog of ISO is actually ISO. Films come with different sizes of silver halide crystal grains. Bigger grains collect light faster and are therefore more sensitive, at the cost of having your photo be grainier. The biological analog would be if we could increase the size of our rods and cones at will to gather more light per cell.
My biggest frustration with the current state of AI discourse is that words mean things and that so much of the current discourse seems to be shaped by mid-wits with degrees in business, philosophy, psychology, or some other soft subject, who clearly do not understand what they are talking about. (Geoffrey Hinton being the quintessential example of the type)
Huh? Hinton's education is not the hardest of subjects, but surely his career demonstrates that he's not a midwit.
So you think that stored emotional trauma causes, say, leukemia? Or cystic fibrosis?
Seems plausible that it's all scammers for some chronic diseases but not others.
But that just moves the question back a step. Why did those specific images make their way to declassification and not others? No way to know until we actually see all the redacted images.
Well...
Note that 4 videos including Gimbal were leaked before being declassified, so it doesn't seem like they're cherrypicking the least convincing videos to release.
The question isn't where it came from, but who's doing the shoving.
I sincerely doubt Americans are shoving Halloween into your country.
Purge voter rolls of noncitizens annually
Huh? Who are the noncitizens on voter rolls? I've never heard this particular claim.
Also, in most regions, the alleged "natives" had displaced, up to and including full genocide, a different group that lived there before. The entire concept is just ridiculous.
Likely true but impossible to prove to a motivated reasoner. No witnesses, no written record - the perfect crime.
Ballots are already multiple pages, you could easily split it into enough pages so that no page could identify anyone.
Wait, there's no reason that your entire ballot needs to be published, right? Publishing the vote tallies for each race separately is sufficient. If there's no association between the choices you make in each race I hardly see the privacy concerns.
The city is wholly contained in the county, so that adds no information. Same likely goes for judges and many statewide offices. Never seen elections for hospital districts.
You've had a debate (presumably on the merits of the claims) a thousand times and you remain unconvinced, yet you claim that everyone would be ok with it if the court would just listen to arguments? Seems more likely that people will just say the court is biased and keep believing.
I've never seen a ballot that has anything more local than city elections, so I can't imagine how it would be a privacy issue unless you've got a city of like ten people. I doubt that intersecting the city and senate district or whatever will result in a small set of people.
I don't think anyone would benefit from this guy asking Kamala Harris the same question for an hour.
I just don't see how asking the same question twelve times is better than asking it three times. Has anyone ever answered a question on the fourth time after dodging thrice?
Presidential candidate jeopardy would be enormously interesting.
What is the point? This isn't a CIA black site, ve don't have vays of making you talk. It's already obvious she's dodging the question.
Also I hate to be pedantic but a question with a number for an answer doesn't have a finite set of answers.
I lied, I don't hate to be pedantic.
What is a closed question?
How hardball can you really get? The man asked her the same question three times. If she can't answer it in a coherent way with three at-bats it is unlikely she'll be able to come up with anything more coherent if you ask her this question ten more times, and it's evidence enough of whatever qualities an interview is supposed to show. He who has ears, let him listen.
Especially given the recent period of high inflation has redistributed wealth like nobody's business.
Inflation is excellent for debtors, and a lot of Americans are debtors.
Change my furniture any time I want for a flat fee and with a warranty? we already have this, it's called having someone deliver/haul away your furniture and buying a manufacturer's warranty, no renting necessary. People don't usually do this because it isn't really worth it to them. Extended warranties in particular have a real bad reputation afaict.
To put it simply, it's difficult to imagine that a company providing this service can make money while the customers are not losing money over the alternative setup.
Maybe there really are people who change their decor every month, and for those people, yeah this might make sense. But for everyone else, the transactions costs are just too great for this to pencil out I think.
Again, how does this pencil out? You basically are marketing a kind of insurance scheme or extended warranty scheme for my carpet, plus I guess the option to swap it out.
We all know that self insurance is the best insurance. Especially when we're talking about something like carpet where there's no catastrophic risk to consider (unlike a car where if I hit someone I can be liable for millions in medical costs), I just don't see a path to profitability for the firm renting out carpets without a price increase for the consumer over the status quo.
Is the option to swap out your carpet important enough for people to make this financially viable? I doubt it, because replacing carpets is pretty expensive and the firm would need to amortize the cost of the guy who swaps his carpet out every week across the entire customer base, even if the median customer changes carpets once a year.
How is this different from renting a tuxedo for prom, or renting some equipment from the hardware store? There's clearly a place for services that rent you something that you're only going to use once, and clothing for special events seems to be the target market for this list of services.
More options
Context Copy link