Pangram and everything like it is useless. The results are random on known samples.

[0] https://xcancel.com/JohnHolbein1/status/2059648132250570975#...

I pasted the text into their form, pressed check... and only then they told me they want me to sign up first.

Good riddance.

“ The attacker hadn’t broken into anything. They’d just noticed something I hadn’t: I had a verified email-sending domain attached to open, unverified signup, and that’s a useful primitive if you don’t care what you send.”

Instant betterness.

And the whole point about "slop" is exactly that the communication is not adequate (despite superficial eloquence), because it's "sloppy" thinking full of unnecessary verbiage that goes nowhere and disrespects the reader, making for an extremely frustrating communication experience.

But if AI (re-)phrasing helps communicate a message clearly then it's not slop. It's just AI assisted. Being able to spot common AI patterns isn't proof of slop, no-matter how sensitive to slop one might be.

And I'm saying this as a person who's VERY much against slop.

(I'm less interested in false negatives; I have successfully produced those myself.)

Anyone with half a brain knows that people can write like that too. Sometimes people reinforce their point. Sometimes they even do it three times.

The problem is not in posts that fail to pass some half imaginary authenticity check. The problem is in technology that makes us want those checks.

We did a lot of experiments to try and get more people to look at the new page or new content. One was placing one new item at the top of your home page and changing that every couple of minutes. The other was the "rising" sort, which was similar to the hot sort on the front page, but much higher velocity.

None of them really worked all that well. The group of people who read new are a unique breed. :)

Anyway, back to the original question: I don't normally follow newest regularly but if I'm on a long flight or something I might get bored and poke around there is anything else there. Often there is something good which never bubbles up.

Is that what "best" sort is doing when browsing a specific subreddit? Occasionally I'll notice some crappy 1 minute old post on my feed that's out of place and realize the sorting was reset to "best" instead of "hot" instead

https://web.archive.org/web/20091210094533/http://blog.reddi...

It was actually created by the XKCD team, to be better than hot.

However, they may have changed how it works since then.

I'm not sure why people tolerate the new reddit website. It is so slow, busy, and chock full of ads. When I open it on the phone you are straight up missing a lot of discussion comments, so it is broken too. You click a comment it looks like it has no subcomments under it. You click the permalink opening that comment thread in a new window, and there's still no subcomment under it. Now you prefix old. to the url, now you see the subcomments.

Makes me wonder how much discussion there is that is just not observed at all by a good fraction of the site who browses these same threads. Two universes on the same post.

Also, I have no idea what you mean about the comments thing. I can immediately see all comments other than the ones that have been collapsed due to having negative karma.

I still use old.reddit.com on the phone. Works fine with pinch and zoom. Super performant too, loads in a fraction of the time which is necessary with mobile connections and spotty coverage. I just saw the native reddit app for ios at least is like 450mb. WTF...

I open this link on my iphone and I only see the top comment by /u/TallGreenhouseGuy. Below that comment, there is a link to "more replies" but it loads this exact same page with only the parent comment, no child comments. Below the parent comment, is just random reddit threads, absolutely random, along with ads. Top 3: post from /r/ghanacitizen (I am not in africa no clue how that is there....), ad from cerave for oil control shampoo, then a link to some thread in /r/learnprogramming.

https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1tt034b/learn_...

This link however works fine and returns the all the child comments I was missing in that first link.

This is just a guess tho, as my account can't (yet?) see comment upvote counts.

literally me

Databricks raised an L round last year, so they'll have to solve it first.

9/11 seems to be an important milestone in his life. In the about section of his web page it says this:

Q:/> How old are you?

A:/> I can't remember the collapse of the Soviet Union, but I can remember 9/11.

I was thinking it's highly confidential (contract!) but thinking about it again I'll just publish the T&Cs so it didn't make sense to protect it.

I used AI to save my last company thousands of dollars, and more importantly weeks of time. When I had to negotiate a contract, I'd just have Claude legal make the redlines against the counterparty for me. Sometimes their lawyer even complimented my "lawyer" on how thorough it was.

Only when a final contract was agreed on did I engage my human lawyer for final review (and usually they didn't find anything of concern).

For standard contracts, AI is pretty good.

This isn't how markets work.

If one lawyer starts doing 10x as much work in the same number of hours, then all the customers will move to that lawyer as soon as they find out, and the other lawyers will have to adapt to remain competitive.

People are clearly hiring lawyers based on silly billboard ads, after all.

You don't go to the overworked lawyer if they still charge just as much as their competitors

Something is forcing them to put in long hours. It's the market.

It'd be a line item: "I worked for 20 minutes. Pay me lots of money". Similar principle to locksmiths when they walk over, do a few seconds of work and charge a hundred bucks. If a lawyer uses the same principle and works for 20 minutes they could target $10k/day.

That isn't a plan that'd work, but if "their interests" were the thing controlling how many hours they worked then that'd be what they would do. They're going to be forced to use AI by the same influences that make them work for full days.

edit: tldr; it does not seem in their best interests to be more efficient at this point

Just like in IT, in law billed hours by one person have little correlation to hours spent working by that person (or others!). The billing does affect customer/client retention and reputation though.

These were enterprise contracts where the other company made the contract. It was basically negotiating specific points of the contract. Claude legal called out a few areas that were disadvantageous to us, and then prepared redlines to send back. The same thing my lawyer was doing for me before I switched to using Claude, except I was waiting a week for each turnaround and paying for a few hours of billable hours every time.

> BTW, just curious about the timing: how could Claude for Legal save you thousands of dollars at your last company if the product came out in February?

Negotiating bespoke enterprise contracts can get expensive, especially when the other party is a huge corporation with a big legal team and a lot of time on their hands. And only the latest product came out in February, there were other products before that.

AI is great at extremely simple contracts for which most lawyers just use standardized templates. Incidentally the same templates used to train the AI you used.

But the psychological benefits can be huge. You have much greater control over the place you spend most of your time. You can change it to your liking. You don't have to worry about rent increases or owner move ins or any of that other stuff that renters deal with.

And if you have kids, they get a sense of home and place.

But don't do it for financial reasons.

That is not the right way to see it.

If you have the cash to buy upfront, then yes, real estate is not that good an investment, unless you have a loaded portfolio already and want to diversify a bit, get some high inflation hedge, etc.

The real value of buying a home is leverage. That is, most people cannot go to a bank and borrow $500k. The bank will just not make a blank loan like that without any idea of what you're going to do with it.

Buying a home though is well understood and borrowing is made relatively easy.

For most people, buying a home is the only way they have to actually get significant leverage from borrowing.

It's probably worth making a closer comparison though:

* Buying a House on Loan: commit to paying off a $450k loan over 30 years at 5% interest, with an immediate $50k down payment and the home itself as collateral. So ~$2500/mo payments, another 400k in interest by the time you're done. Your home probably appreciates by that much in most markets, which gives you a million dollar asset at the end. In some good markets, it may appreciate by 3-4 times, which would mean you have a 1.5-2 million dollar asset.

* Pure Financial Investment: put $50k into a fund, add sustained regular $2500/mo contributions. Let's imagine that the fund averages a conservative 5% annual return and we do this for 30 years. The outcome should be... a bit above 2 million dollars.

All investment involves risk and variable outcomes, but the BHL plan probably has a more varied outcome. Parity may be as common as substantial profit.

The PFI plan, on the other hand, performs really well even considering conservative 5% returns: over 2 million dollars (minus 400k you would have probably paid in rent). Bump it to 8% returns and we're looking at 3 million, a performance even many good real estate markets couldn't match.

Its major problem is that you need to be disciplined about putting the chunky contributions in, which means you need to consistently have rent-payment-level disposable income to make this work. Many working people don't.

Leverage lets housing costs go to equity and interest payments, which is key leverage for people who don't have disposable investment income. But less key for people who do.

A house in a long term play. I didn't buy until I know where I wanted to anchor. That's the deal. I didn't want to be in a situation where late age destitution came because I couldn't afford where I wanted to live anymore. I got to see that play out with older relatives who did go the rent only route. Course I have to pay property taxes, but as it stands it's less than $200/mo and I don't imagine it'll rise above that taking inflation into account. That is something I can afford in retirement even on social security.

There is maintenance, but living in a neighborhood full of elders, a lot of it is truly optional. And honestly I think the only maintenance I've paid thus fair is the yard only because I don't want to do it myself. For me financially this is a hell of a deal with the only trade off that I must stay here. And... I'm settled enough that I'm willing to do that. I moved all over in my early career to find where I wanted to be.

So are Stocks ...

> I find it hard to believe that over time if you took the money you'd put into a house and subtracted out rent, you'd end up winning in the long term.

You are not alone. The thing is this is such a common argument that there are a zillion rent vs buy calculators [1].

That said, yeah sub 3% the math often does work out in terms of buy (assuming you don't sell before 7 years which the average person _does_ sell before). But sub3% and holding for 30 years is actually rare.

It basically comes down to that the down payment gives renters such a headstart in gains that the homeowner takes forever to overcome it. But keep in mind they're also comparing a similar rental house to the bought house. So If you'd rent a smaller 1 bedroom apartment but only going to buy a 4 bedroom house then you're really behind in the math.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=rent+vs+buy+calculator

My guesses were ludicrously wrong when I did these back in 2018, relative to what has actually happened in both the rental market where I live, and the value of the house I bought. I concluded that the reason to buy was only about the non-financial aspect, and that we'd probably lose a little money all told. But it has turned out to be a six figure win in practice. Rent has gone way up, we were able to refinance to one of these very cheap loans during covid, and the property value spiked around the same time. I never would have guessed any of that. And any of it could have gone the opposite way.

So the calculators were honestly pretty useless. It's all too unknowable.

Are we looking at markets where we had massive appreciation in real estate values in the last 5 years? Because while you might say they were outsized and abnormal, the stock stock market was, too. The years of ZIRP made everything nuts.

9 years into my current home and my 20 year mortgage is substantially less than renting a similar house in the same subdivision. And because it's 20 year, the interest rate is lower, and when I retire, I'll only have to cover tax and insurance at a fraction of the future rent.

It forces you to make some assumptions on market returns and such, but it gives a pretty clear picture. The biggest variable is how long you expect to live in the same place (longer favors buy) and the next biggest is the ratio of average rent to average housing payment. The inflection point being that if you live in one place long enough to pay off the mortgage, then it obviously starts to be much more advantageous to buy, but that requires you predicting your life 30 years in the future.

This is true, but the vast majority of people - especially in the US - don't move around the country or even state every few years. One of the biggest, perhaps the biggest, pro of renting is that you're not tied down to one place for very long.

It's pretty rare that someone buys a house then is suddenly forced to move hours away.

I considered putting it up in the bullet points. Apparently deciding against that lost my expressions of this point to some readers, including yourself.

But yes, this is why the analysis after the bullet point mentions the profile of people who don't have $2500 disposable income. The leverage matters more to people in this situation.

Having seen this conversation play out more than a few times and even turn a tad fighty, I think this is the fault line:

* people who do this kind of analysis frequently and generally have high disposable income often see that they can leverage compound interest rather than pay it, so the Pure Financial Investment plan seems like a slam dunk to them, and for their profile they're probably right.

* people who generally don't have high disposable income see that they can use leverage to make their rent payment do double duty, which seems like a huge win for them, and for their profile they're probably right.

What I did leave out is how a mortgage can bound your living costs. Another commenter correctly pointed out rents can expand dramatically. Where incomes track rents, I don't think this makes a dramatic difference, and that's why I didn't include it, but it's true this isn't guaranteed, and mortgage can function pretty well as a hedge.

1) When you say "add sustained regular $2500/mo contributions", you forget that compared to buying your place, you also have to pay rent, most likely at the same amount you would pay back your mortgage assuming same quality of life. So either you have a free $2,500 to spare (in which case you could also have invested that amount in the buying case, or borrowed more), or you have $0 to invest.

2) You cannot just take the expected value of two different returns distribution and assume you would earn it in both cases. That would assume you have infinite time to wait for the average rate of returns to converge. If your life depends on said returns, you cannot just say "oh nevermind I'll wait another 15 years to withdraw". In your example, stock market returns are immensely more volatile than real estate.

When you run the numbers honestly it's really, really hard to get similar gains renting as you can buying, especially 30 years in the future.

In one situation you are paying someone else for a place to live, and when you stop doing that after 30 years, you’re out on the street.

In the other situation you are paying someone else for a place to live, and when you stop doing that after 30 years, you have a house.

After 30 years you either have a house or enough cash to buy that house. In many cases, the rate of return on the cash is sufficiently greater that it is significantly more than the value of that house.

I have decades of data on this in a few locales (including Bay Area and Seattle) based on my own experience and despite buying and (still) owning homes several times. It never pays out better than renting and investing. The math doesn't math. I still buy places occasionally but I am honest about this reality.

For the kinds of places I rent the finance math is so heavily tilted toward renting that it is a no-brainer. I'm not alone in this; I know many people of means that choose to rent even though they could buy any house they wanted.

A careful re-reading of my comment will reveal that I did mention rent as a factor in at least two places: one as an opportunity cost to be reckoned with for people following the PFI plan (with which my example still comes out looking good), one as a cost of living substantial enough for many working people that they do not have significant disposable income, which makes leveraging their largest living cost appealing.

> Interest rates are closer to 6.7% which means your $2500/mo doesn't even cover your principal and interest of $2600 which is to say nothing of PMI (which will be required since you didn't put 20% down), homeowner's insurance, HOA fees, or property taxes.

Using a 5% interest rate was one of several simplifying assumptions that I chose to be generous to the Buy Housing on a Loan plan.

You are correct that interest rates are presently and historically higher than that, and that mortgage insurance, homeowners insurance, property taxes, and some maintenance costs that under the BHL plan can add up to significant housing costs that aren't going to equity and therefore aren't well-leveraged. In other words, the BHL plan actually comes off worse than I made it look.

(If there's a counter side of that, it's that landlords can and will pass on those costs so they're reflected in rents... but sticklers will notice that landlords who are done with amortized costs or who financed at lower rates can choose not to do that and may have incentives to depending on the market.)

That's in absolute terms. There's a relative point too: the higher the interest rates, the more the field tilts towards the PFI. It magnifies debt/leverage, making that path more expensive, and it magnifies return from invested income, making that path more rewarding if you can swing it.

> And don't forget that other than insurance and taxes, your mortgage payment is capped for 30 years.

I did leave out the bounding effect that a mortgage can have, and that's arguably an important missing point.

Wy would someone do that? My observation is that incomes also tend to grow in rough parity to rents in many markets -- in fact, local income growth is probably the primary variable local rents are dependent on (at least in a functioning market). This means during prime earning years decades from retirement, rent changes might be an acceptable simplification. But you're probably right that the closer you get to retirement, the more important bounding costs is. And there might even be other situations where the tradeoff starts to make sense even for earners with significant disposable incomes.

It’s really a form of various hedges wrapped up with a bow, that for many people is desirable (and since we HAVE had appreciation it doesn’t “turn out bad” most of the time anyway).

Anyone who says “renting/buying” is the only way to go is missing something.

In particular the interest rate options in foxed mortgages are pretty expensive and it only hedges the cost of a particular house not housing in general.

Housing cost is correlated with local incomes so in some ways it's doubling down. In particular recessions are deflationary in the immediate aftermath.

Well yeah, in the last 20 to 30 years in most countries the story has been the same. My parents bought a house in Brazil in the early 90's for 30k and we're now selling it for 400k. My relatives in Australia bought a house in Adelaide for 400k around 5 years ago. Prices exploded there and it's now around 700k. They got 300k dollars in a few years while actually earning less than that in salaries over the same period.

On the other hand, me, in Europe, managed to lose money on a house I bought 10 years ago because I overpaid (at the time it was really hard to buy as competition was huge) and after COVID, prices in my region fell 20% and never recovered... Also, I invested too much on a new building in the property which people in this country don't actually value a lot, so the investment did not pay off.

But before that I had made 60k on an apartment in just 2 years. So, while I know too well that the housing market can be unpredictable, I would continue to bet on it going up in most markets since the conditions which made prices increase have not changed.

I think they have. As mentioned above, the past 40 year trend of declining interest rates appears to be at an end. It was the most significant factor in rising prices in my opinion.

This.

I worked for a medium sized company in the early aughts. It was a family owned business. The eldest brother was the owner and we often had lunch and he would tell me that once I make x amount, then I should buy this kind of real estate. When you get to this xx amount, then buy this kind of real estate. Fuck the stock market, only real estate goes up in value every year like clockwork. At the time he had several rental properties and three or four houses located all over the country.

That was until 2008.

Its funny, I ran into him at an architecture conference a few years back and one of the first things he said to me was, "Remember that real estate advice I was giving you? You can completely ignore that now!" and we both had a good laugh about how drastically the market had changed since 08'.

I have done repeated financial models of this over the last 15 years and it has never made sense to buy a house for me.

When rates were low, if I had bought a house and then stayed in it a long enough time to counteract transaction costs, it could have been ok, but in expectation, basically everyone buying a house would have been better off investing the money from their downpayment & repayments into the stock market.

Unless they can get admitted to a private university and a professional school.

  - care about the long-term effects of their actions
  - care about the plan of their surroundings
  - plan to stick around

Notably this is equally applicable to any occupant-owned property (e.g. condos > apartments).

As much as I hate many stupid rules and seemingly unfair application of them, I do like that it mitigates against people that just don't give a shit about their property or the impact of their life choices on others.

You don’t need a potentially abusive and/or rent-seeking HOA for this. My locality controls for all of these potential issues through local ordinances.

I live in a "town" (Reston, VA) that has a notoriously strict HOA. But, it mostly applies to buying/selling and home additions. And it's very consistent. Each subdivision within Reston also has its own HOA that's run by the owners and in charge of regular community upkeep. It works out, as long as you perform due diligence up front and know what you're buying. I don't know anybody who would claim it was abusive or rent-seeking - just mildly annoying sometimes.

All the stories of people who bought in HOA areas and then got fined for having a work truck… I have little sympathy for them because that would’ve been in the HOA docs which were provided during contract negotiation.

The next step would be looking around the neighborhood to ensure that the rules are actually being fairly enforced. If the covenant say no work trucks, but there are work trucks parked at every third home then that’s indicative of a problem may or may not be an issue to you depending on your line of work, but it’s something to keep in line.

There are other things you can check as well. For example, ask for the HOA finances. Are they doing regular capital projects and do the budget seem reasonable? Do they have enough money in the bank for unforeseen capital expenses? Again not always a dealbreaker, but those are things you need to know and people frequently don’t bother asking about.

The renters all have rubbish in their front and back yard, have more pets that they let bark and poo everywhere, smoke weed etc.

There are tax advantages that favor owning (in the US), for a primary resident and not an arbitrageur - mortgage interest and capital gains when you sell are not taxed, while capital gains in a non-retirement account are.

You can gain by appreciation and leverage, of course - but you can just as easily not, you don't know if your city is going to be the next high-flying Austin or Boulder, or run-down Detroit. My own house has been flat in estimated value for four years in an area that I thought would continue to rise.

If you own $400k of stocks, you can sell any increment of dollars you want over time. You can take profit, you can take money out to cover needs, etc.

With a house, sure you can "take out home equity" but its just a loan against your home you have to eventually sell to cover or pay back.

It's like having a $400k position in your companies stock that you can only sell all at once with a 10% round trip transaction fee.

Do you expect to be able to take out a loan on your house and not have to pay it back? Want to have your cake and eat it too, literally?

I bought for $850k in 2017. Selling now asking $899k and no-one’s buying. Think of my ARR with inflation and opportunity cost here. I sold Facebook shares to get this. I have made zero return from rents overall. I’d likely have earned $1M if I hadn’t sold those shares.

[0] https://investment-estimator.com/s&p-500-calculator says $850k in 2017 would be $2.8M by 2026.

Do you happen to be a young person looking to move for better prospects (economic migrant)?

That said, landlords don't always have a choice to not lose money. These are investments, there is inherent risk.

And this is really no different from the majority of stock pickers or day traders. They just lose money.

Just one example, owning a home protects you against price shocks. As others have pointed out, this can sometimes be a bad thing, because when prices decrease you are also leveraged.

But it’s pretty important to a lot of middle class people that they are protected against forced relocation due to 5x housing price increases.

Of course, there’s other reasons to not own a home.

My point is that localized housing markets have all sorts of factors that are perfectly explainable by economic theory but aren’t just “Econ 101, run the supply and demand” curve.

Owning does give you a lot more control over your life in certain ways, which some will find a lot of value in. If you're someone who likes doing home improvements then buying a house makes a lot of sense.

Whether or not you plan to stay in the area for a while is probably the biggest factor. Buying a house makes it a lot harder to move in the future, but it also means you can't be forced to move. I had a horrible rental experience where I suddenly found out I had to move on short notice. It happened right after starting a stressful new job. Combining those two stressors made for some rough months.

I know a lot of other folks with similar stories of having to scramble out of a property on short notice. Maybe the rent gets jacked up to an unaffordable level, or maybe the landlord who said they were renewing the lease suddenly changes their mind.

Our household income is 300k, and I took a big risk purchasing a home in Socal where mortgage is 50% of our take home income. In a space of 1 year or so, we went from saving two out of four paychecks each month, to sinking two into mortgage each month.

For me, we have one kid and we plan to stay put for at least 10 years. It's a good school district. The quality of life is excellent considering the weather, outdoors, cultural diversity, things to do, and proximity to international airport. We have friends and family here.

But to me what mattered most is that I am 40, our income is going to plateau. Renting is good advice, but in 5-10 years, we won't be able to afford rent here, let alone buy. On the other hand, I can refinance now and bring my mortgage down to what I was paying for rent previously, and in 10-15 years be mortgage free at a place with all the benefits I mentioned above.

The key for older homeowners is finding your querencia, the place of your heart. If where you live is your querencia, then countless options open up for you. Simply living in your home and community becomes a joy. Your community becomes an extension of your home and your heart and you become a vital part of that community. In your golden years, that community provides deep meaning and grounding when your work life quickly fades. Building that connection takes time and energy…plopping yourself somewhere else in your 60s, you may not find it. Building it now and in your 50s guarantees it’s there when you want it.

You don't know if you will get priced out. You don't know how housing prices will evolve in your area. They could as well go flat or fall. That uncertainty about local affordability can suffice as an argument for buying. Just don't confuse it with certainty about your future ability to afford the local area.

I'd also argue there are financial advantages (on top of the psychological ones) to the price stability as you don't have to hedge against your housing cost shooting up as much.

The ratio has a wide range from city to city.

Full financial analysis gets complicated quickly because you have to consider mortgage rates, inflation, opportunity cost of the invested money, and how long you're keeping the house. It's possible to pick the more financially optimal decision using today's numbers and then have your perfect plan clobbered by a collapsing housing market, extreme swings in interest rates, or being forced to move early.

I think I disagree on this front, but that’s probably because I ended up buying a home due to a mix of FOMO, bad landlords and rent not being too far from mortgage.

Plus from a psychological perspective it’s hard to say don’t do it for financial reasons when anyone who bought a home in the last 10 years (forget 20+) has seen insane appreciation. I’m jealous of everyone who got practically free money (2-3% mortgages) on an asset that has increased at least 50%. Life probably doesn’t get better than that and makes me wish for such nice things.

At least my “rent” is “set” for the next 29 years (I just bought last year) so hopefully at some point my mortgage would be something to be envious of.

So now you look at a shitty fence. Which you could have done when owning the house too

Furthermore if neighbor relations deteriorate you can always move; as a homeowner you are still stuck with an expensive asset with large transaction costs after you move.

From time to time I drive by the place I rented for quite a few years almost a decade ago now. All the visible stuff that needed maintenance when I lived there is still just as it was when I moved out. Maybe they've fixed up the (worse) interior issues, but probably not.

You won't - you got to account for real inflation which is about 7% in US and taxes.

Note that in both cases investing (simple investing like S&P500) vs owning a house you loose. It's just that overall loses will generally be lesser if you purchase and then sell a house. I will need you to to show me figures on yearly basis if you want to tell me otherwise.

Even if your property doesn't appreciate more than inflation you can still profit massively from owning just through the loan amortization. Only being forced to sell during a market crash could realistically cause a big downside, but the upside is substantial compared to the risk.

It is also the safest leverage investment most people can do and the cheapest way to diversify away from stock market.

In fact paying off your mortgage is usually better risk/profit calculation than buying bonds as mortgage interest is usually higher than bond interests[1]. If you hold any significant amount on bonds you are better off using that money for a downpayment.

Everyone here is doing the cold hard math on 100% stocks when every financial advisor says you should diversify to reduce risks. Of course if you go 100% stocks and assume average returns will keep going forever (and not, you know, go full 90s Japan) the math will say stocks. But if you add any sort of risk lowering diversification a mortgage is usually the best one you can get.

[1]: I live in Sweden where almost everyone has floating interest rates for mortgages, I know US people can lock in their interest at low or high rates for decades which can skew the calculations

When I sold my old flat and even though it only appreciated like 10% over 4 years (about the same as inflation) I still got a lot of money when I got the loan settled. 4 years of amortization at 2% per year is 8% of the original value of the apartment, tax free. And my mortgage+HOA fee was actually lower than my rent was before even before the interest tax deduction.

So after sales fees (also tax deductible), moving costs, capital gains, etc I think I saved around 15% after-tax of the total value of the apartment compared to renting over a span of 4 years. Given my downpayment was 15% I roughly doubled my downpayment money in 4 years.

That is a return of ~22.5% compounding per year _after tax_, which is much better than the average stock market returns. Of course I got there is some luck involved (my apartment didn't go down in value, I didn't need to do any renovations, etc), but I could potentially have profited even more if it had appreciated more. And that is on top of the real estate risk diversification benefits compared to stocks.

Everywhere here rent has rapidly outpaced the mortgage payments and the down payment also pushed down my monthly payments significantly so it's not like nothing comes out of that.

To top it off my home is far more spacious.

Maybe it could work out if you went for the cheapest rent and invested the difference and happened to be that rare case that avoids a market crash. But then you'd also be living in a small appartment for at least 2 decades.

https://www.macrotrends.net/3072/us-house-price-index (~3x in the past 30 years, about 3.7% return per year)

https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-dat... (~15x in the past 30 years, about 9.3% return per year)

This is in line with conventional wisdom on return rates for these asset classes: https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/01/what-is-the-histori...

Unless you are comparing retrospectively hot-shot real estate with retrospectively mediocre stocks, then stock market investment has always won out substantially over real estate investment in terms of raw return rate. This makes sense, given that if the opposite were really true, then it would make no sense to invest in productive businesses as opposed to holding companies that just hoarded empty houses indefinitely.

It's not a choice between $1m in housing appreciating at 3% and $1m in stocks appreciating at 9%. It's a choice between $1m in housing appreciating at 3% or $100k in stocks appreciating at 9%.

Back around 2020 when mortgage rates very briefly dipped below 3%, there could have been an argument. But such is no longer the case and not likely to return soon.

This guy breaks down the analysis very cleanly to a first-order approximation, using 2019 figures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwl3-jBNEd4

> It's a choice between $1m in housing appreciating at 3% or $100k in stocks appreciating at 9%.

Just to drive the point home: It would be $100k in stocks appreciating at 9% and monthly rent subtracted, or $1m in housing appreciating at 3% and a $900k debt growing at 5%+ interest.

Many people in Seattle that bought $1M leveraged with $100k now own a $800k asset. They've lost twice as much as they invested. They would have been much better off investing that in stocks without leverage.

The inventory of housing currently on the market is anomalously high and there are relatively few buyers. I know a few people that will be lucky to sell for as much as they paid a decade ago. People who bought during the COVID bubble are underwater.

This feels more like the beginning of a macro trend than a temporary blip.

At least now they have some sense to cap the rental raise percent but I’ve had to deal with 15-20% increases before, and not to mention the cost of parking in an apartment.

I probably made a mistake buying but I couldn’t take the bullshit from landlords and all the headaches that come with people wanting more money.

Home prices have doubled here since 2014. We are having a modest dip right now.

I've sold a home I lived in to rent something equivalent because the rental rate was a fraction of my carrying costs. Saving the difference in costs added more to my net worth than the appreciation on the property.

Even so, there's still a benefit to owning which is that you aren't paying the agency fees, elevated maintenance fees, and landlord profit, which are all non-zero.

As someone who moved 6 times in 8 years (admittedly, some of those were for work), and every time, I relied on moving things myself/with friends, I was just tired any more!

For the last move, I hired movers since I was already married by then and our stuff tripled (yes, mine was a very small portion).

The fact that I don't have to move for a while now gives me a lot of peace!

In the late 90's I, like a number of my married friends, 'owned' a house in the Bay Area. Dot coms were going crazy, the economy was insane, and people who got big equity payouts were buying places with their stock. At the height of all that, my Sun stock holdings were enough to pay off the remainder of my mortgage but I got the "opportunity cost" talk from my financial advisor about how tech stocks were returning 15 to 20% and more, so what I should really do, is refinance, and put my equity into tech stock! I didn't do that but at least two people I knew did. And when the crash came, the friends that had refinanced ended up selling their houses an moving out of the area, and I was left with the dread associated of being an "older" engineer when tech jobs were on the way out. But I still had a mortgage and kids to support. Had I paid the house off I would be in a position to take a job with much lower pay than my last job and still stay in my house (with just the tax,insurance,utilities and maintenance costs). The psychological cost of 'uncertainty' is especially burdensome on me (which, I suppose, is why I make a good operations person).

I told my wife that if I ever had a chance to pay off the mortgage again (prior to paying it off the old fashioned way of making payments for 30 years :-)) I would. In California, you are required by law to be able to make a payment larger than you requested payment and any excess goes toward the principal. So we started making bigger payments, and between that and some bonuses and stock recovery we managed to pay it off. I still got complaints from my financial advisor that she could get us a better return than that, but I didn't care. I wanted more certainty than that.

Now that story works because I knew that I wanted to stay in the Bay Area, there were jobs that I would be interested in (even if they didn't pay what I would prefer) and that was important to me. A relative who was more management in retail (started at Sears) found owning was a problem because it made relocation harder. As a result, even though they owned now and then, they lost money during the mortgage crisis (needed to move with their house underwater) and didn't get the advantage of just staying in one place.

My wife's parents simply rented out their place and moved to a new place and bought a new house there. They ended up collecting a few properties which were their retirement plan, being sold off over time to pay for expenses when they could no longer work. That was more 'investment like' in my mind. But it was also a lot of accounting work with property managers etc.

Buying a home works really well if you are married and you both have salaries (and initially no kids). The US tax system is set up to 'reward' that behavior with a better rate for married filing jointly and a mortgage deduction for owning a house. It cuts out a lot of uncertainty. But it also means moving is a bigger deal. In today's market, if you bought a house with an < 6% mortgage and are looking at buying with on >9% then they feel a bit locked in.

> I still got complaints from my financial advisor that she could get us a better return than that, but I didn't care. I wanted more certainty than that.

Seems to me that she is the one hurting more because your choice undermined her commission lol

If you buy property it will be yours, forever. You will pass it down, you will be forever part of the community, and your children, and so on.

Both my parents come from big farmer families, and lots of poverty. When my grandparents managed to end serfdom in the late 50's and their rented farm became their it was a huge deal: that became the family home. Like our own castle of sorts.

But i guess it's a different culture, my country has the higher percentage of home owners in europe for a reason, whereas most of northern europe housing marked is dominated by speculation and renting agencies, among the worst sort of leeches that have ever lived.

Renting and owning may not be all that financially different to you with a mortgage of 30+ years, but it will definitely be financially different to your heirs.

It doesn't have to be that hard

Firstly within investing, I am assuming that a person has safety net amount of money before properly investing. This is something that I have heard some people don't exactly do.

As such, what happens is that, they might lose a job and have to pay rent and might have to sell the stocks or any index fund/investments that they had within the market (which depends on if the market is doing good or bad too) and overall snatches opportunity for money to actually grow for years.

I recommend having a safety net but I must admit that there is still some psychological stress overall due to multitude of factors, as such, if possible, buying a house feels like it might be overall decent choice and the differences might not be so much.

that being said, I do think that it depends upon the land prices and many other things overall too.

Also, this is tangential but I used to be a boglehead, still am but with recent cases of Nasdaq[0] & I think S&P bending towards SpaceX and AI IPO's by literally bending rules, it does feel like the investment markets might be more shaky given other factors

(Not a financial advice at all) but I recommend looking towards dimensional index funds which do just a very bit more than index funds if the addition of floaty investments like SpaceX and other IPO's make you fear similar to me.

But the thing is that the downstream effects of it will still be visible, for example, just imagining if SpaceX gets added to IPO and then quickly added to Nasdaq/S&P and then it falls substantially for any reason. The thing is that the market itself would be spooked and other funds would be impacted too.

I have belied in the market efficiency hypothesis but a lot of it feels like private equity trying to raise evaluations to then push it to index funds (by in this case, asking nasdaq to bend the rules to force passive investors to buy and hold the bags basically impacting retirement accounts too and perhaps even govt bailouts but basically it becomes privatization of gains and socialization of losses and becoming too big to fail.

I must say that it feels a bit of blatant corruption in some instances like the one for SpaceX and this removes my confidence within markets.

I do recommend overall diversification for world stocks and also housing if affordable.

I wish to still invest in markets but with a bit more caution rather than blind optimism. Also no, active investing doesn't quite work either reading john bogle books and other resources and passive investing is still superior to active investing overall but just with more caution. That's all.

[0]: https://www.thestreet.com/latest-news/new-nasdaq-rules-open-...

Edit: Read the comment below, it's information I should have included in the first place. It's important to note that the comment was helpful at the time, and only became a meme later.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Of course, that doesn't make them money. But millions of users that then had all their files there and kept using it when no longer students (so paying), and recommended it to their places of work etc.

I actually thought that was a valid comment, more so than the Dropbox one. The contemporaneous iPod _was_ technically and acoustically inferior to the Nomad.

The iPod "won" on account of fashion, style and marketing. Yes, the Slashdot comment was naive in underestimating or ignoring the power of Apple, but objectively it wasn't wrong. Apple released an inferior product and used out-of-band techniques to sell it.

You're cherry-picking your "technicals". The click wheel hardware and software implementation (especially the UI response time) was (and still is) revolutionary.

iPod won on the technical merits; just not the ones you're focusing.

Better than all? No certainly not, Apple's build quality loses out to plenty of much more premium products. But it generally sits head and shoulders above the average build quality of any given product category, which seems to be the niche they most aim for: "the upmarket version of the common offering." That ones that immediately come to mind are Macbooks and iPads.

You can find a laptop that is better in one aspect, but it will be worse in others.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=599852

Absolutely no-one is concerned today about what happens when you dip out of connectivity because fast mobile connectivity was not abundant in 2007 (the iPhone was only released that year), which obviates the "this will never replace a USB" criticism. Mobile made a whole new class of businesses possible.

It would be nice if that still worked. My resume exists in an iCloud drive, and I spent ten minutes on my phone trying to figure out how to attach it to a gmail message before giving up. "Copying" a file isn't even a well-defined operation anymore. (Or at least "pasting" doesn't always paste it.)

You can also just go into the files app, tap and hold, tap copy, go to Gmail tap and hold in your draft email, tap paste.

There’s other paths that work too, like hitting the “send to” logo in files and then selecting Gmail.

It’s really the exact same patterns I might use on a computer for the most part.

Still, copy-pasting a file should work. It's unclear what "copy" even does.

I assumed this was a solved problem before Windows 98 (first desktop OS I used), but Apple cannot get this right 28 years later.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4611830