It does literally refer to penis size. Hiding it behind the word “energy” is just obfuscation. It reminds me of racist people defending the N word by saying, “there’s black people, then there’s Ns. Black people are fine, Ns aren’t.”
You’re just kicking the can down the road. It’s the exact same idea, phrased differently. You just wanna say “small dick” and get away with it, that’s all.
Lmao you have such debate lord energy, the meme i shared literally says your pp size doesn’t matter. The fact that you equated BDE with using the N word shows how out of touch with reality you are.
Yeah, you say dick size doesn’t actually matter, but you’re still talking about dick size. The word “energy” is just an excuse, so you can say “small dick” without being called out.
See, you still show no evidence you have any clue what I’m saying, so how can I take you seriously? I never said it is “like droping hard Rs”. Seriously, get up to speed or get lost.
Here’s an actual, completely serious input for you: If you want people to take you seriously and actually engage, don’t start by comparing them to outspoken racists. People will prefer to roast you
I’m not. I didn’t realise people would be so confused by analogies.
I compared the rhetoric. That’s the point of such devices. You don’t have to be a racist to use similar logic to them.
This isn’t complicated whatsoever.
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
Explain how the comparison is “dumbass”, or admit you’re just wrong.
Anyone can just make claims without justifying them. I claim trees speak German. I will elaborate no further!
pretend I’m smart by invoking latin shit too:
Um, you think that’s all I was doing there? Just saying random Latin?
You do realise this is just… you admitting you don’t know what reductio ad absurdum is?
And you’re acting like that proves anything other than that you’re ill-equipped to discuss rhetoric?
I’ll explain: reductio ad absurdum is a common rhetorical device whereby you take someone’s logic, and apply it to the most extreme example, to show how the logic fails. It literally means “reduction to the absurd”.
Here’s an example:
What you just did now? Saying “I can invoke random Latin shit”? That’s like you, in court, objecting to a lawyer using the term “mens rea”, and saying they’re just “invoking latin shit”, because you don’t realise it is in fact a common term in that context, and instead think they’re just showing off.
Psst, let me share a little secret. What I said wasn’t random it’s another phrase debatelords like yourself use to pretend they are very cool and logical, but I love how eager you were to flaunt your knowledge of something with a very obvious meaning. I thought it was poignant to someone trying to argue some of the most stupid shit I’ve ever heard, and you can say ad hominem to that.
What I said wasn’t random it’s another phrase debatelords like yourself use to pretend they are very cool and logical
What? “I can invoke latin shit too?” You were trying to wield that against me in a “look, this is how you look” kinda move? When I never did that or anything like that? Well, cool. I hope you had fun, but it was a waste of time.
I love how eager you were to flaunt your knowledge of something with a very obvious meaning
I’m not “flaunting” I’m explaining, because it appeared to be a roadblock for you. You didn’t respond to it, but simply point at it and the fact it was Latin. You gave every indication of being stumped. Should I instead have just mocked you and allowed the conversation to come to a standstill? I was trying to explain my point to you.
This isn’t a fucking fight. It’s a conversation. I’m trying to be even-handed and fair, here.
I thought it was poignant to someone trying to argue some of the most stupid shit I’ve ever heard, and you can say ad hominem to that.
I’m not sure you’re using “poignant” correctly, there. But nothing about this comment I’m responding to makes any sense whatsoever in context, so that’s just par for the course, it seems.
Also, why would I call that an ad hominem? Your guesses and estimations about me thus far have been completely off the mark, so what makes you think this one will hit?
All that said, are you ready to get back on topic?
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
The guy is hiding behind semantics, so I described another instance of hiding behind semantics. I deliberately used an extreme example so the error was more clear. Basic reductio ad absurdum.
I could see how the phrase implies that, however this meme subverts that by saying that dick size doesn’t matter as much as your energy does. And the meme literally says that small dick energy is bad, not having a small pp.
Bruh the only time I’ve ever used the term BDE is to imply that the size of your pp doesn’t matter with this meme. Im sorry its upset you, but i dont really care. Trans men can have BDE without even having a dick. YOU are the one implying that small dicks are bad, not me.
Honestly your whole argument is very reminiscent of people in the early 2000s using the word “gay” synonymously with “bad” and insisting it’s not only inoffensive to gay people but that anyone who thinks otherwise is the real homophobe.
The whole “big/small dick energy” things is inherently rooted in body shaming for reasons that have already been pointed out. It doesn’t matter that you didn’t mean it in that way or that you’re trying to flip the script by saying your energy doesn’t necessarily reflect or corporate to your penis size.
Calling someone gay in the 2000’s was not synonymous with calling somone bad, it was synonymous with calling somone homosexual. Gay originally meant lighthearted or carefree. I got called Gay all the time in the 2000’s when I was in high school, the kids never implied it was bad just that I was a homosexual, to which my defense was that I was a Lesbian trapped in a Man’s body so I wasnt gay cause I was attracted to women. The church I went to sure as shit implied that being gay was a sin, but calling somone gay was NOT synonymous with calling them bad. It was used for calling peers out for acting outside of accepted social norms, such as homosexual behavior largely was at the time and still is in some places.
Were you not a (pre-)teen in the 2000s? Because the phrase, “nah, that’s gay” was bandied about quite a lot by teenage boys and men with the mentality of teenage boys quite a lot.
I graduated High School in the 2000s. And yeah I heard, “nah, thats gay” ALOT but its was almost always in reference to things boys didnt want to do cause they thought it would make them look gay if they did it. ie.
I think it’s analogous to referring to balls the size of wrecking balls or something. I don’t know of anyone who thinks bigger physical balls are superior to smaller balls, but the phrase is still common to denote courage. I think big dick energy is not as decoupled from people’s biology as big balls, but it’s still mostly decoupled in common usage.
Look on the positive side, if he comes back for a second term there’ll probably be death camps so you’ll be killed and won’t have to remember when he becomes president for life.
On one hand, I wonder what would make someone so disillusioned to believe Trump would be good for America. On the other hand, I read comments like yours and realize a lot of people are this dumb.
What would make someone so disillusioned to believe Trump would be good for America
The same exact things that made them disillusioned 6 years ago? Their life is getting worse at an accelerated pace and have been for many decades now. The “System” does not work for them and they are tired of pretending it does.
Despite ‘Bidenomics’ - we, the working class, are poorer now than we have ever been. Trump is still a hand grenade to throw at the establishment.
They don’t believe the Democrats have their best interests, and a substantial number don’t believe Republicans have their best interests at heart - which is why it’s Trump or Bust. Trump represents to them what Bernie represented to Democrats - actual change.
But it doesn’t really matter what I, or anyone else, says. You’ve already decided what you think about all of these people.
Trump is still a hand grenade to throw at the establishment.
They don’t believe the Democrats have their best interests, and a substantial number don’t believe Republicans have their best interests at heart - which is why it’s Trump or Bust.
This is fallacy. It may work to attract a certain type a voter but in practice Trump bends over backwards to appease the GOP. He lines his cabinet and campaign with GOP old guard and is set out to accomplish GOP policy goals. Not once in my interactions with any Trump supporters have they hinted at doing anything that wouldn’t be aligned with typical conservative ideology. Trump is the GOPs creation. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Same. Their reasoning and the warning in general make no sense. Why would it be safer to view “unreviewed content” (wetf that means) in their app vs a browser?
I despise whoever made new Reddit. You can only view comment chains two levels deep in new Reddit, then replies at one level, which means you need to constantly keep loading a new page and ads to see each reply in a thread.
Lol that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. But I can tell you who thought of it, easily. The people optimizing the ad revenue. UX isn’t their focus, but boosting profits is.
Is it going to boost profits though? This sort of thing is always presented as an easy way to boost ad revenue but when you’re selling ads at the volume reddit is I would have thought click-through rate would be king and it’s going to decimate that.
I’m sure if there’s one thing they’ve really gotten the hang of, it’s optimizing advertising profits. They explicitly said they’re killing third party apps because they want to sell user data. (In so many words). I can’t imagine they hadn’t thought of what makes them money. I imagine, actually, it’s what 95% OF their focus has gone toward recently.
Or just call it what it is. “States rights was a euphemism for slavery then, and the second they could violate it with the fugitive slave act they did, it was a euphemism for segregation under Goldwater and make no mistake he’d ban it in a heartbeat. It has never been a legitimate argument, just the take of someone afraid to say a position that would cost them any chance of cooperation”
Another interesting note I bring into the states rights argument is that the south wanted to force the north to send back escaped people and were actually sending people into the north to kidnap black people, many of whom were never born slaves.
So yeah the north wanted the right to gives rights to the people in it, and the south thought that didn’t apply to black people.
So yeah the north wanted the right to gives rights to the people in it, and the south thought that didn’t apply to black people.
I think that gives a bit too much credit to the vast majority of Union citizens. Yes there were some groups of Quakers who actually believed in freeing slaves and protecting their rights, but that was a minority opinion .
The majority of people in the union disagreed with slavery for economic and political reasons that were unattached to the morality of slavery. Even progressive politicians like Abe Lincoln who wanted to free slaves, also wanted them to be shipped to the Dominican Republic or Africa afterwards.
The war did polarize people into holding stronger opinions than they did before though.
Even if they started as unionists more than anything else, being opposed to the South turned into also opposing what they stood for. As evidenced by a lot of the most popular northern camp songs, matches and letters, it didn’t take long for “hang Jeff davis, the traitorous scoundrel” to turn into “hang Jeff Davis, the traitorous, slaving scoundrel. Let’s shoot rebels in the name of freedom!”.
Wanting to shoot confederates is a weird reason to become pro emancipation, but I’ll take it.
Agrarian South vs. Industrialized North made for an unfair trade balance. You can hardly trade a bale of cotton for a steam engine, that kinda idea I believe. Been 30+ since college American History, forgot the exact gripes.
We could probably find these disputes in the various Letters of Secession. They almost all start with slavery, but there were other complaints.
EDIT: Oh fuck me, I’m wrong again. The linked are merely the official ordinances, not Letters of Succession. Hence why they’re all dry legalese. But I did arouse your curiosity about Mississippi, so here go their letter.
It means “disassemble all checks and balances, strip the people of all power and authority, and concentrate the power and authority into the hands of a chosen party-aligned dictator or oligarchy.”
Small government doesn’t get any smaller than a totalitarian dictatorship.
Two of these have since been discontinued, one is a Have I Been Pwned reskin. Poor Mozilla, struggling to find alternative revenue sources to cut its Google dependence.
Honestly they should take notes from the Wikimedia Foundation. While they are funded by donations, Wikimedia created a trust that will ensure, without hyperbole, that they never run out of cash
I don’t know what she does day to day, but Firefox usage is going down the toilet and the rest of Mozilla seems mismanaged. Maybe decreasing her salary and hiring some more engineers might help. Right now Google seems to be keeping Mozilla alive to prove that they supposedly aren’t a monopoly. Now she did join after the user trend was already plummeting, but idk $3+ mil is a lot of money to not turn the ship around.
It would just be nice to have an actual chromium competitor.
3 million is a pretty low salary for a CEO of any large company. I get so tired of people shitting on Firefox for this. Can we please give this a rest?
Wikimedia has a similar head count as far as I know, and the CEO is paid significantly less, which is what we were talking about. Mozilla is in a really bad position right now, so that’s why people bring this up.
I assume that developing and maintaining a browser with its own HTML/JS/CSS engine is orders of magnitude more expensive than running Wikipedia’s servers though. There’s a reason why all other browser companies (except Apple) are all building on top of Chrome.
Haven’t played Starfield yet, but comparing a small handrcafted world to a huge procedural generated world is like comparing a single screenshot from a movie to a single realistic painting. It doesn’t mean that Starfield is good, just that it’s not a fair comparison.
On the other hand, using procedural generation should free up a bunch of dev time that you could than be using to make sure the models that the generation uses are quality.
Now comparing individual features, elex looks better, while starfield should be better looking. Since they used procedural generation and should have used that time saved crafting hand crafted worlds making their base models better.
It’s more than an apt comparison, if you look at what they want you to compare.
On the other hand, using procedural generation should free up a bunch of dev time that you could than be using to make sure the models that the generation uses are quality.
Not all of Starfield is randomly generated. This specific example is from one of the main big cities that are definitely hand built. The random stuff is mostly deserts and outposts like what players can build. So even according to your standards, this is a correct and legitimate comparison.
This is a city. The one you go to frequently for the main questline. It’s a whole other level of fucked if you’re procedurally generating the core locations in your game without ‘handcrafting’ over it. Looking like this is inexcusable and it still crippling my computer is an insult.
There’s no excuse for not improving the water system since they released Skyrim. With that budget, it should’ve been doable. I mean, look at that. It looks like sewage.
Minecraft with shaders running on my mediocre PC looks 11x better than on starfield. i don’t care though since i don’t spend time around much water. friggin love the game so far
Well how far back are we talking? 200,000 years or just since writing was invented. Technically those cave paintings from tens of thousands of years ago could be telling historic events of some kind but if we even just say “only since 5000BCE” and only consider events of significant historic consequence shaping any given region (as opposed to neighbors starting a blood fued by shitting in each others yurts), then it’s STILL probably like 90% lost which is just wild.
I had a thought about this on a toke and walk. Imagine all the artisans over the course of human existence. All the skills and tricks they learned to just exist and live. Like a hunter tieing the ends of their bow in a slightly different way so it would work better with what they had, or a cook who figured out a more interesting way to make pasta or something. All that is just lost to the sands of time. That’s okay, humanity is struggling along just fine. Still left me wondering, what do we not know?
I’ve calculated if it would pay off to build a house with four units on a piece of land that I already have. It would barely pay for itself after 30 years but let’s be honest, 30 years is when the first big renovations are in order. I’m not sure if the “landlords are rich leeches” - trope holds up outside expensive cities with inherited properties.
It really depends on the nature of the rental and your area. If instead of building a house you build 4 closely stacked duplexes and charged each one double what the mortgage would be you’d definitely make money, but you’d also be an extortionate leech. In my area someone built 4 nice duplexes on a double lot (probably around 1.5 acres) and is now renting them at $1800 each. The land was probably less than $55k and the cost of construction was likely less than $1 mil. At 5% interest on a 30 year loan their monthly payment would be $5,600, but they’re bringing in $14,400 per month.
$1800 for rent is an extortionate price in my area (it’s big city apartment rental prices, with a pool and gym), even after interest rates went up.
On the other hand, I knew a couple who were landlords for nearly 20 years. They rarely raised the rents and even in 2022 they were still charging <$1000 per month for a full house because that paid the costs and for them it was an investment, not a source of income.
They finally sold their rental homes and made about $70k over what they originally paid on each house. Doing the math that comes out to be a roughly 8.5% annual percentage return without counting the rent gained each month. That’s a fairly solid investment without being a sucky person.
This is the answer, literally this is what millionaires have been doing for ages. It’s just unique that the COVID era interest rates were so low that it made it so that 100-thousand-aires could do what millionaires had already been doing.
I couldn’t qualify for an investment loan worth a million dollars without making some really poor/speculative decisions
Being a full time landlord is super profitable and trouble free until it isn’t. If you get some troublesome tenants your sweet business decision can become a freaking nightmare.
This estimate doesn’t include taxes or insurance
I think these rental prices are outrageous and I’m surprised anyone agreed to them. Not sure who these people are, but someone took the deal. Maybe there was some sort of arrangement so that they didn’t pay the listed rental price (like x number of months free, waived deposit, etc).
I wouldn’t be surprised if the owner is overleveraged unless they were already independently wealthy or they got in before the interest rates went up.
For a while between 2020 and 2022, if you had your home paid for, you could take a mortgage out on that property and invest that money and make more money on the return on investment than the payment for the mortgage and the taxes owed on your profits. That’s how low the interest rates were for a while. I have a coworker who refinanced his house for 2% on a 30 year fixed rate, inflation is generally higher than his interest rate. Doing that sort of thing, taking a loan out on one house to invest with, is stupidly speculative but I wouldn’t be surprised if people did it.
Yeah, well, here they don’t. Currently, building from new costs about 3200€/m^2^, provided you own the ground already.
Average rent for a newly built, low energy appartment with fibre to the home and covered parking including a wallbox (so, basically the optimum you could build with a high rent in mind) around here is about 9 to 10€/m^2^. So that’s 26 years before the building is paid off and that does not include interest for a loan or upkeep for the building. With 4 percent of interest which seems to be the lower end of the market right now I’d never break even.
Buying here is cheaper (1600 per sq meter in the commie blocks part of the city) and rent is about the same. Outside of those blocks you’d usually get copper and no real insulation, with street parking. A brand new apartment in a nice place might net you 15-20 eur per square meter.
Of course, I live in the ass end of Europe where wages are half of what they are in the west so it makes sense our rents, food costs, etc are higher. The peasants shouldn’t have too much to their names.
Tenants also pay any loans associated with the apartment building repairs, or the repair fund collection, not by law but because apartments are in demand and tenants are not. The law actually says it’s the responsiblity of the owner, but there’s literally nothing saying that responsibility can’t be shifted.
Whenever I do the math on buying a multi-family, I find you’d either not be breaking even or barely breaking even with the mortgage, insurance, and taxes by charging market rent. The current landlord is basically claiming future rents as his own when he sets the asking price at level that takes all of the current market rent price for himself.
If you buy the property and want to have enough to do repairs / renovations and cover unexpected risks like tenants that can’t pay and won’t leave, you HAVE to go up on rent, otherwise you will go broke and lose the property.
Maybe there was a golden age when being a landlord meant instant cash flow and money making opportunities, but I find most of the stuff on the market today are just people looking to cash out all future value in the property and assuming the next landlord will basically just jack up rent to cope with the high cost of that cash out.
Being a landlord is pretty risky. You could end up with a bad tenant that ruins your property or won’t pay and won’t leave. You also are responsible for costly repairs and renovations that can have long breakeven timelines. You have to cover that cost some how, and that is by charging rent. Who would assume that risk without a reward?
Good luck getting 11% a year in the stock market. I think your stats include the pandemic and I don’t think we’ll see increases like that again, at least we can’t count on it.
11% has been a financial planning standard since time immemorial (ok, well, since after the great depression). If a hedge fund or other investment isn’t hitting 11%, you should be in S&P or NDQ which flattens to 10% over time… or “only” 6-7% after adjusting for inflation.
The last 30 years are considered “below average”. The market only grew 9.9%/year on average. Which apparently that 0.1% is a big deal for investors.
Here’s a fairly good breakdown on SOFI. Obviously, we’ll never know what the future holds, but 10% over time is the “bad return” that rich people talk about.
“Landlords are rich leeches” is still true because the vast majority of property in the US is not owned by hard working people who are investing their earnings owning a handful of properties at most, but by property companies and hedge funds.
I’m not sure what you used to calculate it, but it definitely isn’t only “expensive cities with inherited properties”… I did the math on the last house I rented: lived there for 8 years. It was a duplex in a city in a very cheap cost of living state. Just my rent alone for those 8 years more than covered what the entire duplex was purchased for 3 years prior to me moving in. That means if both sides were occupied, which it was for all but 1 month in the 8 years I was there, it’s paid for in full in 4 years. Even if you “have to renovate” in 30 years, hell even 15 years, you have 10 years of pure profit even after considering insurance and property taxes and probably even maintenence costs…
Maybe your area doesn’t have high demand for rentals or you under-valued your rent price, but there wouldn’t be so many people doing it if it wasn’t profitable.
That’s how a mortgage works. But the point is that after those 30 years you have a million dollar asset. That you had your tenants pay for.
For a regular plebs like us that’s not a winning proposition because we can’t have our money tied up for 30 years but for people who don’t need their money liquid, it’s free real estate
It’s hard to get a good return on your investment in residential real estate without using leverage.
For instance: You don’t buy one place outright. You buy 5 with 20% down. You may not have positive cash flow, but at long as it isn’t negative not only do you get all the increase in value, you also get more equity every month as the tenants pay your mortgages.
If you bought it outright and over some period of time the tenants have paid your entire investment and the price of the property doubles, you doubled your money. If you buy 5 and over some period of time the tenants pay your mortgage and initial investment and the properties have doubled in value you have increased your initial investment 10X. And before the big expensive renovations come in, you can sell and buy something else if you’re not equipped to deal with that.
Also if you are just breaking even to get free property but you want to start getting passive income, after a few years you can refi to a longer term and lower your mortgage payments to get in the black every month.
This isn’t advice, fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent, just showing one way they can generate both wealth and passive income for nothing. Literally nothing if they’re using a property management company.
Fuck anybody buying up single family homes to rent. I know I already said that, but it bears repeating.
Sure, but I think this example also commingles labor with ownership (as is often the case).
Like you said, your plan involves building a four-family home. That’s labor and worth fair remuneration. It’s just that, in order to get that remuneration you’d be taking payment from tenants who build no equity for their money. Yeah, you’ll have to renovate in 30 years, but you’d still have property and the money paid in rent while they don’t.
A landlord can also simultaneously do valuable work supervising and managing a property. That’s not mutually exclusive with profiting from ownership, and we can separate how we evaluate the two. It even comes up with billionaires: Bill Gates obviously did work worth payment as CEO of Microsoft, it’s just not where he got most of his fortune. It can simultaneously be true that he’s a talented guy who deserved to be paid, but most of his fortune came from exploitative business practices and profiting off of the labor of others.
Also, to be clear, there’s a difference between structural and individual criticism. Obviously slumlords are pieces of shit, but there’s a difference between that and someone who really does work as a property manager doing right by their tenants, or a family renting out a part of their home to make ends meet. I can think that landlords should be judged on an individual basis, while landlording as a thing shouldn’t exist.
I’m on your side mostly but the property prices going up in those 30 years would net you a fortune alone. You could likely sell it as is and triple your money
The old saying ‘buy land because they aren’t making anymore of it’ is true. As the world population grows, owning large amounts of land will be scarcer and scarcer. Most young people can’t afford a home in any western nation across the world and it’ll only get worse the world over as time goes on and the population continues to grow.
The big money’s isn’t in the rent, the rent is just to pay the mortgage and upkeep. It’s that you’re getting in debt that someone else is paying for you while they gaurd your asset which is only gaining in value, you then sell that somewhere in the futute.
On average, the same amount of money dropped into the NASDAQ will have much better overall returns. Real estate ROI is about 4% per year, where the stock market has held close to 11% over the long haul nearly a century.
For small-time landlords, it’s often about “I have a place for me or a family member to live if things go bad”. For bigger ones, it’s the tax-shelter and the low volitility of real estate, as well as diversity in case you need to sell when their stock is down.
Being a landlord isn’t a way for someone who doesn’t have wealth to acquire it. It’s a way to park your existing wealth in quickly appreciating assets preferably purchased from other losers when they lose their asses and collect monthly rent too.
If on day one you have 700k and you purchase an existing property and in 30 days after you rent it out your property is still worth 700k and you are now ahead of the game in 30 days not 30 years.
If you purchased at a reasonable time a year later its worth 750 and you’ve collected 84k 1% of property value per month.
quickly appreciating assets preferably purchased from other losers when they lose their asses and collect monthly rent too.
I wouldn’t say quickly appreciating, though. It’s a fairly slow growth rate for someone with that kind of money. They diversify into real estate because it creates some tax protections (your costs) and it’s fairly stable. Like buying into a terrible small business, but one that magically won’t fail. The things that could cause total loss to real estate are usually handled in standard insurance, unlike a business that can just tank.
The thing is, as you and the other person said, it’s all about the big companies who own tons of real estate AND the big companies that manage rental properties.
People see it as a way to spread awareness about the fediverse alternatives that are out there. Like "hey, if you like this, there's more where that came from." It's not for viewers who are already here, but for those where the post inevitably travels.
I dunno. Both watermarking and being annoyed at the watermarks seem like a waste of energy to me. If people are going to generate content, I'm not going to sass them about how unless it makes something about the content worse (harder to read etc).
Well… You need like what, 3 floats for position and 4 more for orientation. Multiply that by 3 to get velocity and acceleration values. Then I don’t know a few more floats per sensor and you have your whole state space in a few bytes.
Meanwhile a single image is like a megabyte so yeah.
Source: it’s past midnight and I should have gone to sleep ages ago
Grippy socks are standard issue for all in-patients in most US hospitals because they prevent falls and the floor is nasty. Seriously please wear them during your stay.
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.