You gotta find a better way to present this other than making it sound like Torvalds is a baby taking a shit. “The one who makes” I’m dead.

Its capitalized “Makes” which I took to mean a proper name instead of the verb. So this is referring to the GNU compiler Make. Since this is posted in /c/linuxmemes, I think its a safe post for the audience to know the difference.

Going to a movie theater can be a pretty bad experience these days.

• High prices for tickets even during matinees
• Numbered seats requiring buying tickets online hours in advance (which I don’t have a problem with), but then being forced to pay 25%-40% more for “convenience fees” on top of the ticket price
• Other patrons unable to put their phones down so there’s bright white lights every 10 to 15 minutes during the show.
• People talking loudly during the movie
• Way WAY too many Commercials!!! I saw a movie in an AMC theater for the first time in probably a year. I arrived early to meet someone. We took our seats 15 minutes before showtime and they are playing endless commercials at full blast volume so had to yell at each other to be heard (the two of us where the only ones in the theater). The “start time” of the movie arrived. The lights dim and…MORE COMMERCIALS! Another ten minutes straight of JUST commercials back to back. Finally, the add for the theater itself, the cultural indicator that the previews are about to begin. NOPE! MORE COMMERCIALS! 7 more minutes of them. THEN FINALLY a movie preview, okay. Preview fades out, 3 more commercials! Repeat this cycle of one preview with 2 to 3 commercials until finally the AMC Nicole Kidman theater promo comes up, so now the move? Nope! One more commercial for coca cola! Then the movie begins.

The good movie theater experience is dead for me, but I’ve learned that AMC is the worst.

Yep I fat fingered that. Thanks for the catch. Corrected.

Its even worse than that 10% number suggest. Widen the picture a bit more.

“And that gap is widening to a historic extent, Moody’s Analytics data shows. As of June 30, the top 20% of earners accounted for more than 63% of all spending, and the top 10% accounted for more than 49% — both the highest on record, according to data that goes back to 1989. In 2019, during the comparable period, those shares were 59.2% and 44.6%, respectively.”

source

If the bottom 80% of earners stopped spending entirely, only 47% 37% of spending would disappear.

I learned this statistic last week and it explained something that had been bother me for a long time. Don’t the mega-wealthy understand that if the bottom earners have no money they won’t be able to buy anything the mega-wealthy are selling? This statistic tells the tale. They don’t really need that bottom 80% of earners to spend. They aren’t really customers anymore. The mega-wealthy will sell to each other as it looks like they are doing so much of already.

Edit:fixed typo

One in three six-figure earners described themselves in the poll as financially distressed.

I know two different six-figure earning households that are also supporting their unemployed/underemployed adult children. I’m not calling the kids lazy either. Unemployment/underemployment is hitting GenZ really hard and that means many are not able finance their own households so they live with parents.

One of those two was also supporting an aging parent until she passed recently. So, sure, they earn six-figures, but they support 3 generations on that income.

Two in three said six-figure pay is not a sign of wealth.

Not a sign of wealth, but is still a sign of privilege. Lots of folks are suffering worse with far less than $100k annual household income.

If if was that one then it would have the .au TLD if we’re looking at the link so we can tell just by looking at the link its not the Australian one.

Nothing is stopping you from moving to another Lemmy server and blocking .world entirely. You have to find some value here if you haven’t done that already. If you hate it so much why are you still here and posting instead of on another server with other non-Lemmy.world communities?

you…realize thats not only where this Lemmy Community is…but also your user account, right?

How would that work, even on paper? Not being a dick, just don’t understand. So it’s literally just, “you can never own this property fully?”

Yes. The tradeoff is you have a property that is in your name (with a bank note attached), and if the property increases in value during the time you own it, when you sell, you pocket the difference. If you have a fixed interest rate, it also caps the growth of your payment for housing for the entire time you live there. There’s quite a bit of value in that.

One weird thing we have is that part of the interest you pay is tax deductible.

This matches the USA system for mortgages.

for this reason there is a type of mortage where you first only pay the interest, and slowly start paying off more and more of the mortage, which means your net mortage fee slowly increases over time, which is nice if you expect your income to increase over those decades.

This sounds new to me. In the USA we do have amortized mortgages so a very high percentage of the monthly payment is interest with little going to principal. Over time that relationship flips where you’re paying more principal that interest. However, in our system the mortgage payment stays the same, only how much of that fixed payment goes to interest vs principal changes.

I think that title is reserved for the Oval Office.

Balloon mortgages would be good in only two situations:

• you’re not planning on living in the house very long, so you likely exit before the balloon payments hit.
• you believe interest rates will decline in the next few years and you can refinance to a fixed low rate

I don’t ever see myself using a Balloon mortgage. Worse, they are frequently sold via predetory lending methods. Unsavvy buyers are convinced to take a balloon mortgage not understanding the payments will rise dramatically in the years ahead. This can lead to eventual foreclosure when the owners can service the higher payments.

It an overall bad deal in my mind, but there are some upsides (not enough for me to take it). Assuming you get a fixed rate, you lock in your payment and your “rent”/mortgage will decline over time just from inflation eating away at it. I think most folks would love to have their rent decline by 3% every year. This effectively does that.

Additionally, if you are the homeowner instead of the renter, if the real estate increases in value, when you sell, you pocket the increase. There’s nothing like that in renting.

Congratulations on your new home!

Thanks for providing that info on the “afloasingsvrije” mortgages. It was a few years before 2008 when she bought, so that tracks with what you’re reporting.

Here in the USA we have fixed rate mortgages, where you have a single fixed interest rate for the entire length of the mortgage, but I know that not all countries have that. From what I understand in Canada the rates fluctuate during the mortgage where you can get something like fixed for 5 years (maybe 10?) but then the rate can increase on the existing mortgage you’ve already got.

How does the Dutch system work? Fixed for life of mortgage? Continuously variable? Fixed for a time like Canada? Something else?

I know someone living in the Netherlands (home of Lemmy.world!) that told me they had interest only mortgages that didn’t pay toward the principal and that this was common over there. It seems like these new 50 year mortgages in the USA are a step going that same way. Anyone from that area confirm this?

So a spacewalk then? SpaceX demonstrated EVA capability in 2024 when Jared Isaacman exited through Crew Dragon’s nose. However the Chinese crew’s launch suits aren’t spacewalk-rated, and while Tiangong has Feitian EVA suits, they’re incompatible with SpaceX systems — and might not even fit through Crew Dragon’s hatch.

Not that the SpaceX Dragon rescue will ever happen for other political reasons, but I don’t see space suits as a particular problem. Dragon is a 4 seater, and their are 3 Chinese Taikonauts. A Dragon, with one crew member, and 3 empty Dragon EVA suits could be flown up, the spare suits put in the airlock, and then the suits donned by the Taikonauts. We’ve had a piece of this already when Butch and Suni flew up to the ISS on Starliner, and then had to have Dragon suits (not EVA) flown up separately. Butch and Suni put the Dragon suits on and came back to Earth safely.

I’m referring to customers not local to the area that want lower prices and would be willing to travel to get it. In economic terms this is called Price elasticity of supply.

If the goal is universal grocery availability at the lowest prices, then I agree: this plan alone won’t achieve that. However, I see a couple of factors here with the plan that could achieve some measures of success.

The first is that the plan is to place these stores in, essentially, food deserts in the city. That would have an immediate positive impact on grocery availability for the localities around the 5 stores. Further, the fact that the city stores will be selling at wholesale will mean that food prices at these could be noticeably cheaper. This would steel customers from other grocery stores, forcing them to lower prices to attract their customers back. While grocery stores usually run on small profit margins, that usually is still while having to pay property taxes (which city grocery won’t), but land (which city grocery won’t), and pay for expensive business operations (marketing, executives, etc) (which city grocery won’t).

I’ll be the first to say its not a slam dunk win for everyone in the whole city immediately, but the locals around the store benefit immediately, and the success of an alternative without a profit motive puts pricing pressure on existing stores possibly fleecing customers with higher prices.

It’s a bold move, and I want it to work, but I can’t see how it does at this point.

Could you expand on your thoughts here? Which part do you see as failing or what your definition of failing for this project?

Is this logic that someone specifically investing vs having a retirement fund or similar is the same thing?

You’d have to ask @ CubitOom@infosec.pub. My guess is they would consider both “complicit in genocide in Gaza” with their broad definition.