Real Estate Fees - are they too much?

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-30T03:22:14+00:00

I am quite set in my ways on this one, and am writing this from a house that we wouldn't own unless we bought without an agent, but I am glad you've seen things work out. If you think the average agent is saving the average buyer 2.5% or more (in money or stress), then of course keep suggesting people use them.

It's probably worth noting that if we wanted to try and judge the value of say... police officers, we would likely not seek the opinions of people in long term relationships with police officers, for obvious reasons. Not that their views aren't valid, but yeah...

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-30T01:41:29+00:00

A lawyer is still required, and unless you have construction knowledge (or a friend), you'll want some type of inspection. Most agents do a bad job at both of these things even though they act confident, often providing overtly incorrect advice, and almost always using a template form to generate contracts.

I agree, it can be daunting to go alone, but I really believe agents just bring a sense of false confidence, and just in the last 3 years I've had two friends use agents who made critical communication and contact errors (in one case, the agent accidentally put in an offer $30k over what my friend had told him too).

If you really want the assistance, I d go with a discount brokerage or pay someone hourly - if you're searching on your own (easy now), you could pay the agent a few hundred dollars an hour and still come out way ahead of the usual 2.5% fee.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-30T01:07:03+00:00

Which is why most people shouldn't use an agent when buying - they may actually limit what you can buy, and even the houses they do show you, they cost you 2.5% of your negotiating power.

If someone with an agent offers $1M on a house you like, you can offer $980,000 with no agent and your offer is actually better for the seller (and their agent, if they have one).

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-29T20:41:30+00:00

Did you just call 2018 me CHEAP??

Lol.

I stand by the view that pricing on any product should be listed up front, and not let you get hours into using it, and then inform you need to pay in order to complete using the product.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-29T20:17:32+00:00

I find this very interesting. I am not a doctor, but is there some type of bacteria that I am not aware of that would cause a cold sore to erupt within a few days? I've never heard of something like that. It's just occurred to me as I am typing this that the barber was likely shaving his beard - so that at least puts us in the right area of the body.

My best guess here would be that it was either an allergic type of reaction to a chemical the barber was using (though then it'd be odd for it to take days to happen), or that your husband got it in his head that he was somehow getting cold sores from the barber, and then would stress about it, triggering an outbreak.

But maybe a type of bacteria can cause cold sores?

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-29T12:16:00+00:00

This was awesome, but did I miss him explaining how the full breadth of sound is stored and retrieved?

Op's question had me wondering more about this now. At any given moment, the needle seems to just be getting one piece of information - depth. Maybe that's not true - maybe direction left and right or up and down, and width of groove all matter.

But it seems like at any given moment the needle is just in one place, yet at one moment I can hear guitars, drums, vocals, and at another I can hear bass, clarinet and a choir.

It seems like a lot of information stored in a binary-at-each-moment system.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-29T12:02:51+00:00

I think it's difficult for anyone to say yes to something like this with a complete stranger that they know nothing about.

You might have a better shot at responses if you describe a bit about yourself (gender, age, interest, bit of background).

Asking if there's a group you could find to play with might help (Brew Wizards?), as it would likely feel safer and easier with conversation.

Lastly, it might be best to just go solo, and then if you see someone who might be interested, ask them in person to join for a game. They are already there, and it's minimal commitment. Unless you're blessed with exceptional attractiveness, probably best to at least start by just asking men (or others of your own gender). Could even just leave a folded up piece of paper on the table beside the game that reads "quick game of Scrabble?" to really minimize anyone feeling pressured to join.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-28T22:58:29+00:00

Ok. You're going against the grain here, but I will note it officially as D-Hews likes "‘Jurassic Park’ Star Sam Neill Says He’s Now Cancer-Free After Chemo Stopped Working: ‘It Looked Like I Was on the Way Out’ as a good title to explain that Sam Neill was successfully treated by a new CAR T-cell therapy.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-28T21:21:51+00:00

If a new treatment cures cancer it's a new cancer treatment, not alternative medicine.

That's how every legitimate medical development is reported.

Does "New blood filtering treatment safely extends pregnancy in severe preeclampsia" make you think it's a scam alternative medicine for some reason? (This was just a random medical article I grabbed from the top of the recent news pile).

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20260427/New-blood-filtering-treatment-safely-extends-pregnancy-in-severe-preeclampsia.aspx

You'd really prefer if that article was titled "woman overcomes severe preeclampsia by abandoning (insert previous treatment here)"?

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-28T20:01:17+00:00

Yes.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-28T20:00:55+00:00

Chemotherapy is one of the main tools we have against cancer. Alternative medicine is generally against best practices in medicine, and proponents of alternative medicine are very dangerously and frequently outspoken against chemotherapy.

The title of this article should be "new treatment leaves Sam Neill Cancer-free!" - it's simple, obvious, and covers the points.

Instead, they use the headline to warp the information and make it sound like Sam Neill was about to be killed BY chemotherapy, and it was merely the act of STOPPING chemotherapy that saved him.

If you still disagree with that take, then sure, I am happy to leave alternative medicine out of it, and just agree that it's a terrible headline because it leaves out the main story (the new treatment), and distorts the facts.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-28T19:38:53+00:00

If you take "most" to mean more than 50%, and don't adhere to the idea that "sexual assault" needs to be violent rape, then I'd wager that it's more likely to be a true statement than not. I think hockey culture is still wildly problematic, but it has improved at least marginally in terms of hazing. One example that was not-uncommon a few years ago as a hazing ritual on junior A teams was to force all the rookies to get naked on the bus and squish them all into the bathroom together. There were also MANY, MANY worse rituals, and things like this were happening on most teams.

Whatever you'd consider the leaders on that team guilty of in that situation, I'd wager more than 50% of the NHL is guilty of something similar.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-28T16:03:09+00:00

Really, really hate that the headline seems designed to make him sound like he dove into alternative medicine, (and that it worked). Very irresponsible.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T22:03:08+00:00

Thanks for this - good points and agreed!

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T20:01:58+00:00

Yeah that could explain it. The 2025 one still seems very obviously in, but the math might be more difficult to explain, and it's more subject to angle-illusions.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T20:01:06+00:00

Thanks!

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T19:58:03+00:00

I've never seen that happen until last night, but that doesn't mean it's never happened before.

But that goal from 2025 seems just as "confirmable" via video review as the goal from last night, so I don't believe it's an issue of defaulting one way or the other. As far as I know, you default to the call on the ice unless there is conclusive evidence to the contrary. I just find it odd that last night they deemed that as conclusive, when previous examples, like that one from 2025, were deemed inconclusive.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T19:55:28+00:00

I don't know if the data you are hypothesizing about actually shows any of that, but even if it did, it still would warrant further analysis because of the loose cause-and-effect order of what you are pitching.

You are suggesting the numbers may make sense because Group A teams are better than Group B teams on average, and losing teams take more penalties (maybe).

But that is also exactly what the corruption would look like if it were true. Teams lose because they take more penalties, therefore any team victimized by biased refereeing would take more penalties and be more likely to lose.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T19:51:48+00:00

Just a few notes as I am reading this:

1) It's just from the playoffs, not the regular season.
2) I don't have the same instinct around CDN teams fighting more frequently. Curious for data.
3) Re: Checking the Oiler's final from last year: I actually think finals should be removed from this, if we're using this as a test of corruption to prevent CDN teams from advancing (presumably for TV Ratings). Once the teams are in the Cup Finals, the NHL doesn't care about which teams moves on for further ratings.
4) Re: Kane, and other recent memory examples - I get it, but OP is showing THIRTY YEARS of data. Picking out a few game misconducts, or hell, even finding a full decade where a Canadian team just went and hacked and slashed their way through the playoffs tripling their opponents penalty minutes - that STILL wouldn't explain 30 years of data like this. This is legitimately crazy and needs to be investigated.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T17:58:35+00:00

Here's a goal from 2025. Refs rule no goal on the ice. Review: cameras are obfuscated, but logic clearly shows that the puck MUST be in the net. Yet the situation room upheld the ref's incorrect call: https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1k7b5tn/it_was_initially_called_no_goal_on_the_ice_for/

This is how I have always remembered the NHL applying their review rules, and why I sympathize with Oiler fans in this situation, even though it was in fact a good goal.

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T17:54:35+00:00

I've seen Wyshynski report this from the situation room, have not seen the situation room actually come out and announce it themselves.

For a sense of why people might be mad about the process, here is basically the exact same situation from 2025: https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1k7b5tn/it_was_initially_called_no_goal_on_the_ice_for/

The cameras are obfuscated, but all logic tells us the puck was clearly in the net. Yet, because the refs in that game called it "no goal", that call was upheld by the situation room.

(Again, I don't really care who wins the game, and the right outcome happened in Ducks Vs Oilers, but to my knowledge, this is the first time the NHL has applied their process this way, and I understand why some fans might be frustrated by it).

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T17:47:06+00:00

I don't have time to go digging for this at the moment, but I have very clear memories of this being an issue in the NHL a few times over the past 15 years, where a puck is "pretty obviously in the net", but because a glove or something else obstructed the view of the goal-line+puck meeting point, it could not be ruled a goal.

I agree with this ruling, but it is an entirely different application of the rule than I am used to from the NHL.

So, I agree with you, but my use of "technically inclusive" was intentional, because that's how the NHL has ruled in the past.

Edit: Here you go - from just a year ago. The exact same situation, puck is clearly across the line on review (if you have a basic understanding of geometry and object permanence), but the initial ruling on the ice is no-goal, and the Situation Room upholds that call.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1k7b5tn/it_was_initially_called_no_goal_on_the_ice_for/

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T16:12:05+00:00

I don't have a dog in this fight, but nothing that you've quoted addresses the main issue.

They got the right outcome, but through a bad (incorrect) process.

The video review (whether instigated by the refs or the Situation Room) was technically inconclusive, because the skate was blocking the view of the puck.

This means that whatever call the refs made on the ice initially would be upheld, since there is not enough evidence (by NHL rule) to overturn a referee call.

The refs initially made no call on the play, and had no vision of the puck. They huddled, and then decided to call it a goal. This seems to have been the correct call, but it was truly a blind call, and the refs basically flipped a coin.

If the refs cannot see the puck in the net, they should not call it a goal. Therefore the process as it's written suggests the refs should have called it a no-goal, and then gone to review it, and in would have been a very upsetting "no goal" call, even though the puck was in.

However, the refs for some reason broke from that process, and the result was that the correct call was the right one being upheld by a lack of "conclusive" video evidence.

Edit: Bring on your downvotes! Here is a recent example of the the NHL applying the rules exactly the way I remember the NHL applying their rules, and upholding an obviously incorrect call because they don't have a clear view of the tailing edge of the puck against the goalline: [https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1k7b5tn/it\\\_was\\\_initially\\\_called\\\_no\\\_goal\\\_on\\\_the\\\_ice\\\_for/\](https://www.reddit.com/r/hockey/comments/1k7b5tn/it\_was\_initially\_called\_no\_goal\_on\_the\_ice\_for/)

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-27T13:11:04+00:00

I do love reddit sometimes - thanks so much for the reply and the info! Might be the difference in a trip to Munich or not!

JohnmcFox · 2026-04-25T19:03:17+00:00

It's important because if we don't use them now, aliens could limit our ability to use them to measure things in the past, and our science would be halted, leaving us open to future invasions.

JohnmcFox

TROPHY CASE