281–290 of 324 posts
These are the kinda articles I like to just read the last paragraph. So much work to paint some annoying ass story; sorry, I skipped to the end haha.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this sarcasm? Because this entire story is predicated on the fact that while you’re renting the home you bought you’re living somewhere else and that somewhere else is either something you’re renting or something someone else has bought and you’re living in there rent free.
I don't think it's sarcasm, just poorly explained. Owning a house serves two distinct purposes - as a home or as an investment. Despite what a lot of people think, it can't be both at once. As an investment, you forego some upfront capital (downpayment), have some monthly costs (mortgage payment) and a monthly income (rent) and at the end you have an asset (current value) and maybe an obligation to pay another lump s…
Part of the value of a house is the value of living in it, the rent. It costs to live in a house, and the amount it costs is the rent. And this is true whether you own the house or if somebody else owns the house.
Living in a house you own vs renting out the house you own decreases your net inbound cash flow by the amount of the rent; rent is paid, even if it is your house.
this is very basic economics, very basic finance, but, as understood by somebody smarter than all of you, who has kindly taken the time to explain it. You are welcome.
(Consider living in a house that you do not own, and paying the rent. Now, marry your landlord. What has changed? Answer: nothing, the rent you now save is also income the couple has now lost.
(you will need to make adjustments for depreciation allowance for investment property, tax deductibility of expenses, etc. but that's details, not conceptual. Do you suspect that these line items actually could make the difference between this being a wash vs a no-brainer money machine? they don't. If tax deductions make landlordship more (or less) advantageous, then the market will shift landlords⇔tenants till a new equilibrium is achieved where the rents and deductions balance out, with people living in all the same places. no value was created or destroyed, except less govt interference in markets is better, dead weight losses and all that))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the best examples of a food industry (grains) being able to influence eating habits to their benefit. Anyway, the phrase "healhty" in relation to food is a bit of a trigger phrase to me nowadays, healthy how? It's completely lacking in nuance. Apples are healthy, except when you eat 200 seeds at which point the cyanide gets to a lethal dose. Granola is healthy, unless you eat it three times a day and little el…
At the same time, there is also a faction that appears to argue against overly studying or obsessing about nutrition science, saying that if you really just prioritize variety, moderation, and made-at-home, then you're already 90% of the way there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time, there is also a faction that appears to argue against overly studying or obsessing about nutrition science, saying that if you really just prioritize variety, moderation, and made-at-home, then you're already 90% of the way there.
I wonder what the value is of that advice, it's so incredibly vague. What's "varied"? What's "moderated"? Feels a bit like an excuse to stay ignorant.
I think point is less to stay ignorant and more to focus on macro-level changes (water > soda/beer, vary your starches, get sugar from fruit, avoid "filling up" on purely protein) rather than obsessing over this or that micronutrient and trying to boil it all down into a perfect formulation that you consume in a sludgy pancake-batter-tasting "shake" twice a day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that granola would be healthier is rather strange
People can be persuaded to silly things on silly logic. There was a time after prohibition when the prevailing theory was that vodka was healthier than whiskey because it was clear and whiskey wasn't. Our educational institutions marched an entire populace right into obesity because the government insisted the food pyramid was scientific, and not the result of lobbying. Honestly it's a bit wild to me that we ever thi…
https://www.eds.clinic/articles/low-histamine-alcohol-histam...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People can be persuaded to silly things on silly logic. There was a time after prohibition when the prevailing theory was that vodka was healthier than whiskey because it was clear and whiskey wasn't. Our educational institutions marched an entire populace right into obesity because the government insisted the food pyramid was scientific, and not the result of lobbying. Honestly it's a bit wild to me that we ever thi…
Some people have less reaction to vodka because whiskey includes other compounds. But that says nothing of healthier just histamine levels. https://www.eds.clinic/articles/low-histamine-alcohol-histam...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atkins doesn't say that, at all, and then explicitly mentioned extreme low carb diets in my comment.
> Atkins doesn't say that, at all The meme version of it does, and their official website gets pretty close - fat is unrestricted, it's fine to eat as much fat as you have an appetite for, it's fine if a large proportion of your calorie intake is saturated fat. I guess "to excess" is subjective, but Atkins certainly says that fat consumption levels that respected medical authorities say are dangerous are fine.
(1993). The hotel reopened in 1996 but Irving never returned. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-05-19-ls-5806-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the help of a stochastic parrot I've determined the following: Consuming an LD50 quantity of eggs (400–500 eggs) would amount to about 29% of a 70 kg person's body volume. This suggests that such an amount would be physically impractical to ingest in one sitting, even before metabolic toxicity becomes an issue.
Ain't no man eat fiddy eggs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Get disappointed and lawyer through the arguments to justify renting a home. As opposed to just flatly stating that owning a home is always good and dismissing any opposition out of hand as “lawyering”? Here’s my first attempt to lawyer: I don’t want to live in a house. Is owning a house always good for me?
You can own apartments too. I assume the logic is pretty much the same either way.