Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#361

Post by caseysoftware »

TheNorthman wrote: post #287
bityard wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because the bank still expects the mortgage to be paid.

If this was true, we'd see landlords with paid-off mortgages waiving the rent. Since we don't see this on any major scale, we can only conclude that mortgages are inconsequential to landlords demanding rent-payments.

A mortgage is not the only cost of owning a property. Taxes are a third of my mortgage payment every month. Other than the IRS delaying tax day by 3 months, I haven't seen any delay or waivers of taxes due.

In addition, there's basic upkeep and maintenance that you're required to perform to keep a building insured, let alone to make it re-openable at some point.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#362

Post by lozaning »

mrob wrote: post #229
LegitShady wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you start training weighted exercises it's very difficult to get similar workouts with bodyweight. If I'm squatting 250lb it's going to be tough to simulate that with my bodyweight and I'm not likely to be able to load the reps the same way.

One-legged bodyweight squats + whatever heavy things you have available (e.g. bottles of water) in a backpack should be difficult enough. If you care about "functional strength" then it's arguably superior than barbell squats. And one-handed pushups are good substitute for benchpress.

I can rep 450lbs, but pistol squats still kick my ass.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#363

Post by hammock »

vharuck wrote: post #188
hammock wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interacting with other people is a two-way street. If you are afraid someone across from you might have been to one of these gyms, then walk away from them.

Because of community networks and a contagious disease, that's effectively asking me to quarantine all the time.

Now you're on the right track. Imagine how a daily churchgoer feels.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#364

Post by jdhn »

andrelayer wrote: post #332

I think a lot of people in this discussion are pitting the argument at people prioritizing their individual choices over the collective health of the community. I think that is a very singular framing from one side. A lot of people I know just believe that the virus itself is not as deadly as the reaction warrants. The infectious mortality rate of Covid is at best twice that of the normal flu, which isn't nothing and…

I'm tired of hearing about "the new normal". This is NOT normal, and the weak attempts to make it normal is just disgusting. Like you said, this isn't as deadly as people first thought it was, but it seems that those in charge don't want to admit that they're wrong, and as a result everybody is suffering from this even if they really wouldn't suffer from COVID.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#365

Post by nradov »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #355
andrelayer wrote: post #332

I think a lot of people in this discussion are pitting the argument at people prioritizing their individual choices over the collective health of the community. I think that is a very singular framing from one side. A lot of people I know just believe that the virus itself is not as deadly as the reaction warrants. The infectious mortality rate of Covid is at best twice that of the normal flu, which isn't nothing and…

But you know that you can be a carrier and infect less healthy people right?

Asymptomatic transmission, while possible, is rare.

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2671

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#367

Post by squeaky-clean »

hammock wrote: post #344
squeaky-clean wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm okay with this answer as long as the people who go to the gym aren't allowed in the grocery store, bank, on public transport.... Because I do have to go there whether I want to or not. Give any gym-goer a 2 week temporary tattoo on their forehead so I know to avoid them. Then we're cool.

You'll have to talk to your local grocery store or bank manager about that.

I actually edited out a /sarcasm because I thought it was that obvious. Oh boy.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#368

Post by polote »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #355
andrelayer wrote: post #332

I think a lot of people in this discussion are pitting the argument at people prioritizing their individual choices over the collective health of the community. I think that is a very singular framing from one side. A lot of people I know just believe that the virus itself is not as deadly as the reaction warrants. The infectious mortality rate of Covid is at best twice that of the normal flu, which isn't nothing and…

But you know that you can be a carrier and infect less healthy people right?

Then lets lockdown and force people who are less healthy to take all the steps to protect themselves, and leave alone the healty ones ?

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#369

Post by zelly »

diebir wrote: post #352

I could never understand the point of a gym. Just a pair of running shoes. Some dumbbells. I picked up slacklining and bosu ball training during the lockdown. Why does one need a "gym" ??

Because a barbell, olympic weight set, squat rack takes up half a room and costs $10k vs. a <$30 monthly gym membership.

Re: Secret gyms and the economics of prohibition

#370

Post by mitjak »

pyronik19 wrote: post #249
bmsleight_ wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can't just dismiss the fitness routines people have spent years choosing and refining and getting better. I am not, It must be very hard, to take away something you love and trained. Society is asking you to sacrifice a big thing for something that may not benefit society at all. The chances of you catching and then spreading are ~ 1/1000. Assuming a 1% mortality. We are asking 100,000 people to give up somethin…

Society is asking you to sacrifice a big thing for something that may not benefit society at all. ^ They definitely aren't asking

are you really arguing there would be a higher chance of compliance if instead of making it law we resorted to politely asking?
Post reply on HN