|
Greg Utas wrote: houses always go up in value
And the ignore that it's at best irrelevant (where are you going to live if you sell it for a profit?) and at worse a disaster (when you sell because the family needs more space and find all the bigger ones have increased in "value" at a proportionate rate and your are suddenly miles behind teh curve and way out of your financial depth).
High and rising house prices help only real estate agents, solicitors, and government tax departments ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So what's the alternative? Rent? 
Rent is often more expensive than mortgage except when you pay rent your money is gone forever.
Depends on how long you're going to live in a house, of course, but five years of rent is easily €50,000 down the drain.
If I currently bought a €300,000 house and got that money from the bank and paid that back over 30 years, I'd "only" pay €40,000 in the next five years.
That's a €10,000 difference on the highest interest I can get.
Meanwhile, rent is rising while my interest is not.
Then when I sell my house after five years I probably get €300,000 or more back for it.
This is all very dependent on where you live though.
When you live in a city renting is probably your only option unless you're a millionaire or very lucky.
And rent or buying may be cheaper or more expensive in different countries or even different areas (€300,000 will buy you a box in Amsterdam, but it'll buy you a huge estate in Gelderland, so to speak).
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: So what's the alternative? Rent?
I've been renting for almost 20 years. 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Rent is often more expensive than mortgage except when you pay rent your money is gone forever.
So, there's another I just need to interrupt.
Costs of rent or buying are similar if you take in account the subsidies. If one had to pay the entire interest on the loan without our government paying a part, it would be more expensive than now; and you are also responsible for maintenance and your end-value is a bit uncertain. You dismissed both risc and cost (of ownership).
Your money isn't "gone" when renting. You're not from the generation that ever rented a video-tape, eh?
Renting doesn't mean your money is "gone"; that's bullshit that financial experts spout. If you rent, you pay someone for the luxury of using an item without any risc or costs associated of owning that item.
SaaS is built on the idea of renting software instead of buying it. And yes, that usually kills the conversation at the party with so-called financial expert.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: If one had to pay the entire interest on the loan without our government paying a part, it would be more expensive than now
Yes, and fortunately we're going to stop this "hypotheekrenteaftrek".
Getting a subsidy on a loan of which the already rich have a lot more profit than those who actually need it, crazy 
No doubt it's one of the reasons houses are so crazy expensive right now!
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Renting doesn't mean your money is "gone"; that's bullshit that financial experts spout. If you rent, you pay someone for the luxury of using an item without any risc or costs associated of owning that item.
That's a lot of money to mitigate some risk!
Eddy Vluggen wrote: SaaS is built on the idea of renting software instead of buying it.
So are lease cars, which I have exactly because of what you said
A lease car of €350 a month or a house for €1000 a month is quite a price difference though.
Plus that a car is rarely a good investment while a house usually is.
Especially now that interest is so low.
Anyway, I bought a house some six years ago and it costs me close to nothing now 
My car is actually more expensive than my house ever was
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Yes, and fortunately we're going to stop this "hypotheekrenteaftrek".
Getting a subsidy on a loan of which the already rich have a lot more profit than those who actually need it, crazy
No doubt it's one of the reasons houses are so crazy expensive right now!
That was intended to stimulate house-ownership, and it works. High housing prices are normal if interest is low, and modern houses in the Netherlands have to adhere to more laws than 60 years ago. Laws for the environment, requirements in safety, all adding to the costs.
Sander Rossel wrote: That's a lot of money to mitigate some risk!
I remember a time when interest was at 6.7% for a house-loan, and a familymember who needed a new roof. The risc is there, as are extra costs. Like (and this is weird) extra taxes (eigenwoningforfait). So on one hand we give money to stimulate it, on the other hand we tax it extra. Then there's the surprises, like asbestsanering and replacing lead waterpipes.
And I not only pay for those, but also for the comfort of not-worrying about it
Sander Rossel wrote: Anyway, I bought a house some six years ago and it costs me close to nothing now
My car is actually more expensive than my house ever was
Then you did well
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Costs of rent or buying are similar if you take in account the subsidies. If one had to pay the entire interest on the loan without our government paying a part, it would be more expensive than now
Only if you can itemize. I haven't been able to itemize for five years (note - this predates President Trump's tax cuts). I'm also not paying the entire interest as spelled out in the loan paperwork because I've payed so far ahead.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Your money isn't "gone" when renting. You're not from the generation that ever rented a video-tape, eh?
Actually, it's gone from the perspective that it's no longer your money.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Renting doesn't mean your money is "gone"; that's bullshit that financial experts spout. If you rent, you pay someone for the luxury of using an item without any risc or costs associated of owning that item.
Not entirely true - if you lease or rent a car you still must carry insurance to cover the loss of the vehicle. You've taken 100% responsibility for the item and then paid a third party to cover your responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
obermd wrote: Only if you can itemize. I haven't been able to itemize for five years (note - this predates President Trump's tax cuts). I'm also not paying the entire interest as spelled out in the loan paperwork because I've payed so far ahead.
Not commenting on stuff I don't know about; there's a lot of stuff that works differently for Americans. Not sure if one can pay ahead interest here.
obermd wrote: Actually, it's gone from the perspective that it's no longer your money.
That is equally true for buying. No service or product is for free.
obermd wrote: Not entirely true - if you lease or rent a car you still must carry insurance to cover the loss of the vehicle. You've taken 100% responsibility for the item and then paid a third party to cover your responsibility.
The insurance is for usage, not ownership. Same goes for my house; most of the cost is for the owner, but there's still some minor things that are mine to pay, since I'm the user.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: a phone subscription and credit card are considered debt too,
A credit card is a debt-based card. I never owned one, just the normal debit-card. As for phone-subsciption, that must be a plan where you "buy" a package and then have down-payments disguised as an abo.
Also; relocating for work is a weird idea for yearly or half-year contracts. I can see how Canadians and Americans need a car with those distances, but we got good public transportation.
Sander Rossel wrote: I haven't given anyone the finger (never burn bridges)
..but if you ever do, do it well. Don't just burn the bridge, but torch every village along the river.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: A credit card is a debt-based card
Yeah, and those crazy Americans can't get enough of them 
I got one for Microsoft specifically.
It's just crazy that you need one for an Azure subscription or an exam
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Also; relocating for work is a weird idea for yearly or half-year contracts.
I think relocating is a weird idea for any job.
I look for a job where I live, not for a life where I work.
Unless you really want to work for a specific company I guess, but I don't.
Eddy Vluggen wrote: but if you ever do, do it well.
A story I heard from an ex-coworker.
One of his coworkers had a week off work, but one day he came in the office.
His boss asked him "you just can't live without us, can you?"
The guy replied "nope, but I'm going to try anyway!" and he slammed his resignation letter on the boss' desk
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: It's just crazy that you need one for an Azure subscription or an exam 
Hehe, let my boss do that; I don't need an azure subscription. HE needs me to have one.
Sander Rossel wrote: I think relocating is a weird idea for any job.
I look for a job where I live, not for a life where I work.
Depends on what they pay 
Still, I think it is more common in the US, where they easily drive a few hours to family.
Sander Rossel wrote: A story I heard from an ex-coworker.
One of his coworkers had a week off work, but one day he came in the office.
His boss asked him "you just can't live without us, can you?"
The guy replied "nope, but I'm going to try anyway!" and he slammed his resignation letter on the boss' desk 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: HE needs me to have one.
I needed one to stay attractive for possible employers 
When I took one, my employer was not at all interested in Azure.
My next employer got me a subscription with €130 credit a month, which I still have for some reason (and not from my previous employer).
Anyway, I'm currently self-employed so I DO let my boss handle my subscription
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I needed one to stay attractive for possible employers
So do I; but I cannot take financial liabilities for work, being an employee.
Sander Rossel wrote: Anyway, I'm currently self-employed so I DO let my boss handle my subscription
Well, he wouldn't be the boss if he didn't know what he was doing 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
- I've buried too many houseplants. Never again!
 - No comment
- You're about 7 years too late. IMO, the idea that you aren't doing the best that you could is the strongest motivator to leave the nest.
- With the exception of debt incurred to make your living (education, a car to get to work, etc.), all debt is bad. If you can't pay cash - do without!
A mortgage on a house is an investment in a lifestyle, not an asset.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I've buried too many houseplants. Never again!
That's called Gardening, apparently.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feeling that the anagrammed age will be far worse.
|
|
|
|
|
Are there walls around the cemetery because people are dying to get in?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The plot depends upon what tomb of day it is. In the wake of such events, very coffin one finds the gates wide open.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
That's a very crypt-ic comment. Misinterpreting it could have grave consequences.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the dead worm their way out.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I just lost my appetite. 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Usually Generalized parsing algorithms are complicated to implement due to being non-deterministic, but very powerful in that they can parse ambiguous grammars.
I really like GLR parsing because it's an elegant solution to a very complicated problem. It uses a difficult to implement LR parsing mechanism underneath but the G part of it is a relatively simple addition that supercharges the expressive power of the LR parser underneath and allows it to parse ambiguous grammars, like human language.
So when I wrote the Glory GLR parser generator I basically jumped the shark. There's little need for something more expressive as it already accepts any grammar. The only way I can think to improve on the algorithm is to implement a contextful grammar, but there are practical problems with even attempting this.
On contextful parsing
Context-sensitive grammar - Wikipedia[^] - it's not exactly a mathematically solved problem - at least not for every day parsing. The problem is that a computer is a Linear Bounded Automata and those aren't powerful enough to compute every CSG you can throw at it in practical time, but rather only a subset of them can be computed.
Recursively Enumerable Languages like English just aren't practically parsable using traditional means.
My prediction is that a learning system will be how we can parse such languages. We'd use machine learning to apply contextful meaning instead of taking a classic mathematical approach to break down the language linguistically and formally to a machine. At best, we'll partially parse using context-free means, like with GLR, and then work on each of the multiple trees we get back using some form of ML, essentially using context-free parsing to get our basic structures and then applying context using ML.
I believe that latter approach is already taken by some "AI" bot systems out there, like that ill fated microsoft twitter bot that turned into a Nazi. I can't be sure without looking at the code though.
Either way, it's a challenging problem. I'm not sure I'm up for solving it on my own. I don't even have the hardware I'd need to try it for anything real world, nor the man hours and expertise to produce a usable English grammar.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
well there is of course a long history of trying to parse natural languages, and
a variety of extensions to CFG's to handle that, usually in the form of attributing
grammars in whatever form. One form would be to add predicates to the grammar
where the predicate is used to select the direction of the parse (this is basically
why one prefers a handwritten recursive descent parser, since you can mix predicates
with symbol recognizers)
You might want to have a look at 2VW grammars (2 level van Wijngaarden grammars),
they were used in the description of Algol 68.
They are not "just" attribute grammars, since in most of the common attribute grammar
description the parsetree is annotated and the
attribute grammar is constrained such that in a finite - and preferably precomputed -
number of passes the attributes can be computed.
2VW grammars do contain (kind of) predicates that allow (or forbid) certain derivations.
Sine you seem to like exotic parsing techniques, handling some form of generalized
attributes during the building of the parsetree seems an exercise to keep you busy for
a couple of {weeks | Months | years} (select one)
|
|
|
|
|
I allowed for some measure of attributed grammars that could direct the parse in Parsley, but I've not found a practical way to implement 2 level van Wijngaard grammars (with all rewriting involved). And while they were probably used in the description of Algol 68 I bet it was human hands that implemented that grammar. That's my problem, is I'd want to cut out the human step. The GLR parser simply returns multiple trees for the different contexts and it's up to the consumer of those trees to select the right tree (and consequently applying context) - that's another route to go rather than 2VW, but 2VW does appeal to me in that it maintains formality and so it's I think possible, if not realistic to compute parsers for those grammars. However, they'd be slow.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
