...can you? Even owning a home doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to live comfortably in one place for 3 decades. Median homeownership is usually shorter than 15 years[1]. (Per 2009* - more recent numbers that I've seen indicate that number is decreasing, not going up, but those are usually based on more short-term studies, post 2008.)
And renovations aren't exactly something homeowners are comfortable with, even if they technically can do it.
Source: I work for a homebuilder who aims to sell multiple homes to each customer (from first-time, to trade-up, to retirement.) If the median homeownership-length went up to 30 years, we'd have to reevaluate our entire business model.
It would be completely within my control (excepting the extremely rare case of eminent domain being applied if the UK wanted to build a railway station or something).
What the median or mean or modal person does is neither here nor there. It's completely irrelevant.
15 years is also a colossal period of time compared to any private rental. The average tenancy length in the UK is about 2-3 years.
The remark I was responding to was "can you live in the same property for 30 years". Changing homes is not living in the same property, so I believe I chose the correct metric. Home ownership does not guarantee that you will be in the same place for 30 years.
All of this isn't even to consider the fact that most homeowners don't literally "own" their home in that timespan, as 30-year mortgages are very common. A lot of people buy homes because mortgage payments are oftentimes cheaper than rent payments (there are exceptions, obviously.)
The point is living in 7 different homes for 30 years, means at the end your home is paid off and you have no rent. Of course that is ideal, most people extend their loan terms often.
As you said - that's ideal. The home people trade-up to is usually more expensive than the home they move from (not counting empty-nesters) and - ideally - there will be a myriad of factors that can help one finish paying off their new more-expensive home within the same timespan, like more income or selling at a profit. But those aren't necessarily givens, as they're determined by things like your locale and the state of the housing market.
SOME people renovate their houses SOME of the time. Our biggest market is trade-up buyers, which is usually viewed as the alternative to remodeling. The housing market has been on an uptick since 2008, which increases the rate of trading-up, as the hope of selling at a profit is one of the reasons people buy homes to begin with.
That's the beauty of serving mostly read-only data - you can just cache the most frequented pages. I can't think of a time that I clicked on a link for Stack Exchange that wasn't served via a search engine. I've never purposefully clicked a link from within Stack Exchange, and I've never posted any answers. I can thank those who do for enabling my success in my career, but I'm willing to bet that most Stack Exchange users are just like me.
"I've never purposefully clicked a link from within Stack Exchange..."
How do you resist those crazy unrelated questions in the sidebar? Currently shown for me:
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?
Ha! I do this too. Just the other day I was pair programming with someone who asked "why don't you have those super stupid questions on the right nav bar?"
That shadowfax one, quora is horrible that way too. You're interested in one bit of canon triva one time, and the site immediately assumes that particular story is all you want to read about, every day for months.
Well it's also a sport in it's infancy, not a more-than-a-century-old sport that's literally called "America's Pastime". Maybe when it's older than a couple of decades, the social factor of the sport will be more present. I was into eSports as a teenager, but it was very, very niche at the time, as you say. Nowadays, gaming is so commonplace with teens that a streamer like Ninja is able to reach a level of pop stardom.
"E-sports is this funny thing where everyone outside of my bubble seems to talk about but I have yet to find one person in my bubble who actually gives a shit about it. Like seriously, where is the interest??"
Agreed - As someone who enjoys the taste and the effort being made, Impossible burgers still feel very much like a novelty. There are several restaurants in my area serving Impossible burgers, but they are usually the most expensive burger on the menu. Given that this is going to be a dollar more than a standard whopper, it'll cost the same as a double whopper.
With that, the only real incentive to eat the impossible whopper over the standard whopper would be personal motivation to eat less meat. And I'll hazard a guess that most people eating Burger King aren't immediately concerned with cutting down their meat consumption.
Agreed as well. I find this encouraging given beef's large carbon footprint, and think low-grade burgers are the best target for replacement by synthetics (forget trying to engineer a steak). I don't expect them to become popular until they're almost indistinguishable and at least as cheap, but I think that could happen soon.
This would be better titled "a comprehensive guide to aspect-based sentiment analysis using our service." It only abstractly defines how to do it, so I would definitely not call it a "comprehensive guide" (though I'd definitely call it an advertisement. HN has had a lot of these lately.)
Issues with NPS aside, I've had success doing aspect-based sentiment analysis using a summation of TF-IDF and NPS, paired with multinomial naive bayes classification, which is fairly simple and probably doesn't require a 3rd party service. You'll have to find a way to roll up TF-IDF and NPS though, as NPS is a fractional measure - so any given term within a document will have an NPS of -100, 0, or 100. Great for basic "positive", "neutral", or "negative" classification, but not so good for a true NPS score.
It is indeed an argument, and the idea that the laws around landmines and chemical weapons are what caused them to occur less is very selective reasoning. Those two cases are weapons that have a blowback towards those who wield them (Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan are still cleaning up landmines), and it's just as likely that their diminishing was due to there being less costly ways to kill people.
Inability to enforce is exactly why prohibition has been a colossal failure, so how is the ability to enforce irrelevant to a law's success?
Things like these are hard to judge, but a ban is a sign of intent and not a perfect solution to prevent a certain situation.
We collectively agree to ban certain things (e.g. murder), because there are multiple reasons to do so. Some of these reasons are humanitarian, some rational, some economic etc. Yet we see proof each day that neither laws nor punishment will stop murder from happening.
The idea of a ban is not to stop things — but to increase the (social, economical, ...) cost of certain behaviour.
Any actor who fears that cost will abstain from chemical weapons for example. But just like with murder you will always have actors that either decide it is a prize worth taking, or they never ever thought about it at all.
Hard to say how effective those bans were, but they certainly helped to nudge some actors into adopting higher standards.
And once there is a standard the majority agrees on it is hard to go back to a lower standard..
"and it's just as likely that their diminishing was due to there being less costly ways to kill people."
Politicaly costly, as more and more people pressured for more human ways of war.
Because mines are a very effective and cheap military strategy. (where mines are you don't need so much troops). I say it was the boulevard pictures of children without legs, that did it. And maybe will so again after the first killbots gone rouge..
Because I doubt any big military would miss out the opportunity to at least be able to flip the switch to let them operate and shoot autonom,
when you have more cheap massproduced robots than operators and need them and or the enemy is jamming you and the situation is critical.
...Does anybody consider all the existing bug bounty programs "PR stunts"? You seem like you're fishing for a reason to continue disagreeing, and you're most certainly putting words into a stranger's mouth.
A bug bounty program would demonstrate a lot more sincerity around securing their devices than a one-off reward to a kid given simply because the kid got enough attention in the media.
I had a feeling it was more complicated than the interviewee made it seem. It almost made me want to get their book, just to see what new model they had in mind. Sure, the UN model is imperfect, but all the measures used directly tie to population and don't use debatable correlations.
Having grown up in trailers, I wholly disagree. Every trailer I've lived in is larger than any tiny home that I've seen, as they're striving to be as close to a "normal" house as possible. Tiny homes come from a completely different design philosophy, and as result, give a completely different experience than a trailer. They're also more portable than trailers, though the latter's name makes it sound more moveable.
You'd be more correct to say that tiny homes are gentrified RVs.
...can you? Even owning a home doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to live comfortably in one place for 3 decades. Median homeownership is usually shorter than 15 years[1]. (Per 2009* - more recent numbers that I've seen indicate that number is decreasing, not going up, but those are usually based on more short-term studies, post 2008.)
And renovations aren't exactly something homeowners are comfortable with, even if they technically can do it.
Source: I work for a homebuilder who aims to sell multiple homes to each customer (from first-time, to trade-up, to retirement.) If the median homeownership-length went up to 30 years, we'd have to reevaluate our entire business model.
[1] https://nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=194717