Your rent payments now, may be quite different in a few months.
If you rent an apartment in a desirable location, which is
far easier than owning a house in a desirable location, then
rent payments are huge.
And comparable or worse than owning a house in farther out.
Your luck with landlords can wary a lot, and your rent payments
may increase substantially with little notice.
The landlord may also sell the building with either different
management or repurpose it for something else and you
will have to find a different apartment.
You may also suddenly have unpleasant neighbors.
That is true with a house as well, but the distance
between you and them is closer in an apartment.
As a dog lover, If you wish to have a big dog your may not be allowed to.
If you want a yard to kids to play, you cant.
If you want chickens you cant. (I know many in Denver who do)
If you wish to install extra cooling /AC/heatpump you probably cant.
None of that negates your arguments fully, but the case is far
from as black and white as you make it.
I think it's because there's only a tenuous sense of control with things in-between, and to some extent SFHs that have strict HOAs. I mentioned in another comment that although in theory (in the US & Canada anyway) you can buy an apartment or duplex or townhouse, but as far as I'm aware you only gain marginal control over what you can do to modify it if you wanted to, and the advantage to owning largely comes down to owing the bank vs owing a landlord, but otherwise (sometimes even with SFHs without HOAs) you are beholden to the local bureaucracy if you want to make any significant changes condo strata and/or city permits). Seems like buying a non-SFH for any significant amount more than renting the same place is just trading the fear of eviction for the burden of debt, and buying a SFH is just debt+burden but you get a garden or something.
Source? In my neighborhood on the outskirts of downtown (about a 10 minute drive out) at least 25% of the houses are rentals, maybe more like 33%. Lots of investment properties people scooped up when mortgages were 2%.
The question I why did you edit photos?
What was goal?
Why were you doing it in the first place?
I guess the thing you have discovered shooting
analog is that each click is a finite resource
so you spend more time composing and being
aware of the scene before you take the photo.
Saving £20 is nice.
Having your 36 snapshots developed at a decent lab
will cost you more.
In you are paying them additionally for edits
as well you are on longer saving money.
You just pay someone else.
Or are you giving it to a company that runs it
through an automated usually digital these days
sometimes analog machine that develops them
automatically? Those machines usually do edits
as well. But highly automated ones.
(I am not sure they make them anymore)
Having my medium format film developed is
far from cheap.
Lightroom is far from the only editor out there
and it is not a great editor to start with.
Lightroom is a Frankenstein combination of
of a DAM and an editor.
You probably will want some form of DAM
to organize your photos regardless.
I have been awake too long so I am probably stupid.
Please have mercy.
I don't understand.
NASA says they goal of landing on the moon in 2028 is not realistic.
They are adding a launch in 2027 to do more testing.
Great.
It will be followed by one possibly two lunar landings in 2028.
Are the now 2028 landings primarily testing SpaceX integration?
The Artemis rockets are huge, and extremely expensive.
And the build time is considerable.
Now they are planning 3 rockets in two years,
each of which is not reusable?
Then they have to build those in parallel, which makes sense
but incorporating wha you learn in 2027, into rockets you have already
nearly finished seems an odd approach
iOS is one problem, but it goes for every other
device/server/desktop/appliance that you use.
You can take a lot of precautions, and mitigate
some risk, and ensure that operations can continue
even if something bad happens¹,
but you cant ever "be safe".
¹
""
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know
""
(Often attributed to Donald Rumsfeld, though he did not originate the concept.)
The different between taxes (you -must- pay (unless X loopholes applies to you))
whereas tariffs are voluntary and even more so then sales tax.
You may chose not to buy any products or goods that requires you
to pay tariffs.
Which is the primarily goal to begin with.
Influence consumer behaviour.
I realize that for some products and goods there may not be a
an alternative choice of products or goods that do have tariffs.
In theory, over time, these will be increasingly replaced by
products and services that have the competitive advantage of
not having to tariffs applied to them.
Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible
that, domestic producers have expand capacity, have created jobs
have caused supply chains shift and new production is based on
the tariff based price structure
This however takes time.
And to what extent it happens is not easy to predict.
Some may think that the next president will remove all tariffs
the moment he or she takes office, so it is a short term problem.
The problem with removing them all, is if the above has happened,
and removing them will destroy American jobs.
There's certainly a case to be made for targetted tarrifs, legally enacted, to support specific industries.
The problem with broad tarrifs by executive order under emergency powers to address longstanding issues are numerous.
Longevity and stability of the tarrifs is questionable because a new executive is likely to cancel them, the executive that issued them is likely to cancel them, and they may also be cancelled by the courts because their basis isn't solid. For some goods where production is easy to shift, it still makes sense to move it ... but then it's easy to shift out again when the winds change; goods where setting up production is a many years thing aren't likely to move with the winds.
The broad tarrifs mean that for goods that are manufactured from components of many origins, it may not make sense to pay tarrifs on the components in order to reduce tariffs on the finished goods. Or that it makes more sense to move manufacturing from one foreign country to another than to move to the US. I get it if you want to move both manufacturing and resource extraction to the US; but it would make more sense to do it one step at a time... first develop demand for the resources in the US, then push to onshore the resource extraction... OTOH a lot of americans prefer resource extraction to be out of sight, and some resources are simply not abundant here.
The other factor is that many countries respond to our broad tarrifs on their exports with their own tarrifs on our exports. This can easily hurt US producers more than it helps them. US products become more expensive in those countries due to their import tarrifs as well as US import tarrifs on the inputs and often there are many non-US suppliers to choose from; possible increases in US domestic demand may not materialize because costs will go up for US consumers as well due to tarrifs on input and potentially loss of economies of scale if the reduction in exports is significant.
I may be a free trade maximalist, but IMHO, the current admin's tariff policy is a recipie for economic slowdown. Which does help their goal of reducing immigration: the best way to reduce economic immigration is to have a deeper recession or depression than the world at large; it also helps with traffic. Big inflation numbers also push stock indexes up and reduce the cost of servicing old debt, but increase the cost of revolving and issuing new debt.
> Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that, domestic producers have expand capacity
That's how tariffs would work if wielded for the right reasons. But now domestic producers have to pay tariffs on the very machines and inputs needed to expand capacity.
Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that, domestic producers have expand capacity
Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that consumers will be paying higher prices for inferior goods from providers that can't compete elsewhere.
In other words, there are both positive and negative effects --- and no clear way to predict which will prevail.
It's 19 century economics applied in the 21st century --- it's direct government interference in the marketplace --- the opposite of what Republicans spent decades railing against.
Those are exactly the groups that are meant to pay for the tariffs.
A factor in this that is not mentioned is that companies selling
goods to the US may have made an effort to lower prices,
altering production to lessen tariffs or in other way tried to
offset the extra amount US consumers have to pay.
The big problem EUs continuous big talk on digital sovereignty,
which is a good and vital concept, is that funding is ridiculously
lacking.
Terms used like;
“European hyperscale cloud”
“Sovereign infrastructure”
“Strategic autonomy”
“European data centers for critical workloads”
Which ended up in various efforts and projects
Digital Europe Programme,
Recovery and Resilience Facility,
IPCE
(I am not deeply familiar with EU projects)
I believe funding was around low hundreds
of millions (€) total
To build one hyperscaler region might cost around €10 billion.
The second problem is that systems that were suggested
out of it still relied on US software stack, US computers,
etc.
It is not like the EU member states could not fund it,
some estimates say aggregated EU and member states have
spent €350 billion in Ukraine.
That is not to say they should not do that,
nor to suggest you have to chose one or the other
but it is demonstration
that EU+Member states can fund massive efforts,
If deemed important enough.
and EU+Memberstates so far have not felt an urgency or will
to really invest in digital sovereignty.
The EU doesn't really fund many things directly. It's total annual budget is just 170 billion euros. It can fund research and coordination projects but at the end of the day the EU is mostly a coordination mechanism for sovereign states. Looking purely at EU projects is not really a useful lense to get an idea of what is happening...
And comparable or worse than owning a house in farther out.
Your luck with landlords can wary a lot, and your rent payments may increase substantially with little notice. The landlord may also sell the building with either different management or repurpose it for something else and you will have to find a different apartment.
You may also suddenly have unpleasant neighbors. That is true with a house as well, but the distance between you and them is closer in an apartment.
As a dog lover, If you wish to have a big dog your may not be allowed to. If you want a yard to kids to play, you cant. If you want chickens you cant. (I know many in Denver who do) If you wish to install extra cooling /AC/heatpump you probably cant.
None of that negates your arguments fully, but the case is far from as black and white as you make it.
reply