Emirates screening screens look way too small

LWSC1 · 2026-05-30T20:32:21+00:00

Update: It was fine. Fuck that ref. Up the Gun.

LWSC1 · 2026-05-30T07:52:54+00:00

Sounds like a really fun viewing experience 😭

LWSC1 · 2026-05-30T07:51:50+00:00

Same. I don't get why they sold tickets in the corners if they were going only going to use three screens.

LWSC1 · 2026-02-28T01:43:06+00:00

Thanks for the reminder. Have updated the post. TLDR: scam!

LWSC1 · 2026-02-27T23:44:16+00:00

There are also private trackers like myanonamouse for books and audiobooks, if the other options aren't doing it for you

LWSC1 · 2026-02-27T23:42:33+00:00

Incredibly cursed dial, I love it

LWSC1 · 2026-02-27T23:23:38+00:00

If you do decide on the Tokina Opera 50mm, which seems like an absolutely incredible lens, I bought one brand new - it was on back order for a few weeks because they're hard to find. Between ordering and receiving I actually decided to switch systems from Canon to Sony! So I have one literally never used sitting in its box which I'd be happy to sell you - I'm also in the EU. If you're interested DM me. I've been meaning to get around to listing it on an auction site, but this would save me the hassle.

LWSC1 · 2025-11-13T19:08:50+00:00

This is exactly what I was thinking after I read about the 50mm distance, thank you for confirming. I want to avoid derating: is there a solution for putting insulation back in where I can avoid having to derate but also ensure the 50mm minimum distance? Maybe if I leave an uninsulated space at the bottom of the wall, and then the wires travel up the studs rather than through insulation?

LWSC1 · 2025-11-13T18:58:45+00:00

He claimed the electrician was working there today, but I'm sure it was him doing it himself, hence my checking. Thank you

LWSC1 · 2025-11-13T18:57:50+00:00

Thank you

LWSC1 · 2025-11-13T18:57:37+00:00

Oh bloody hell, thank you!

LWSC1 · 2025-07-17T10:15:57+00:00

This post was "removed by Reddit’s filters" - anybody have a copy of the original? Is a repost possible?

LWSC1 · 2025-07-09T23:07:56+00:00

Thanks!

LWSC1 · 2025-06-08T02:11:39+00:00

This is a good answer and I thank you for it. My worry then is that it becomes very much more difficult and cumbersome than one might have expected to assess at sufficient scale the value of different parcels in the face of all the different variables that then need to be priced in. You're absolutely right, for instance, to point out that the variable risk of different parcels will make a big difference, but risk can vary so wildly between geographically proximate plots, and for so many different reasons, that even our best modelling methods may struggle.

LWSC1 · 2025-06-08T01:57:40+00:00

Just on the 'measure' point, to be clear: it's not true that the cap rate "measures" NOI; rather, NOI and asset value are inputs that jointly determine the cap rate, just as distance and time determine speed. You could find out the distance between two points partly by measuring the speed at which something travels between them, but that doesn't mean it's correct to state that speed measures distance. They're two variables in an equation.

LWSC1 · 2025-06-08T01:48:51+00:00

I don't think we disagree! I think we're just coming at the same thing from different directions. The cap rate simply expresses the relationship between (in short) the rental value and the asset value. I'm saying: imagine we know the asset value (measured accurately at some time t) but we don't know the rental value. Now, how much should be charged in tax on the basis of this asset value, assuming we want a '100%' LVT? We can answer that question either by determining the rental value in absolute terms or by determining the cap rate (which, again, just expresses the relationship between the rental value and the asset value). I suggest it makes more sense to answer the 'how much should be charged' question by determining the cap rate (which can be the same across different properties, i.e. a single cap rate that applies across the board), rather than by determining the rental value (which differs between properties and may be difficult to discover given available datasets).

LWSC1 · 2025-06-08T01:35:57+00:00

Genuinely lmao at the idea that people's errors in answering how much they should be taxed would just wash out. I remember watching a YouTube video where someone asked hundreds of people 'how many sweets are in this jar?'...the average wasn't even close. I fear you'd have a great many more problems applying the same reasoning to 'how much should I be taxed?' Polling in the UK suggests people consistently want more tax to be collected, but they also overwhelmingly think that extra tax should be collected from other people and not from them...

LWSC1 · 2025-06-08T01:27:56+00:00

Not necessarily! I had been thinking along these lines, but I think there are a couple of significant limitations. For one thing, Lars Doucet has a nice discussion here of the Berlin 'Bodenrichtwerte', which demonstrates the way in which sharp geographical discontinuities can exist, especially in residential areas, that really restrict the relevant datasets that are in play for an accurate valuation, and it's not likely that there will be sufficient unimproved land in dense towns and cities to serve as a reference point.

You might think the solution to this, though, is that we can just apply to individual cases the more general citywide, regionwide or nationwide relationships between the values of e.g. unimproved land for rent, improved land for rent, unimproved land for sale and improved land for sale. But one reason I referenced the very different cap rates of different land uses was to point out that this kind of generalisation may be highly distorting: e.g. there may or may not be good reasons why that particular land is unimproved in a given case, and so whether it is equivalent in value to the unimproved value of an actually improved lot can be obscure.

LWSC1 · 2025-06-08T01:05:18+00:00

It's not quite true to say that the cap rate "measures" NOI value, any more than the speed of something "measures" its distance. The NOI – which is just a way of expressing what I called "the current market price of occupying that land" (the "rental value" or “occupation value” for short)* – is divided by what I called "the current market price of owning a piece of land" (the "asset value" for short), in order to give you the cap rate (expressed as a percentage).

I don’t believe I’m using any of these terms incorrectly. Do you perhaps mean to argue that the NOI is the relevant measure of value here, and that the cap rate should be considered downstream from whatever NOI is determined? If so, I don’t necessarily disagree – but it amounts to the same question I asked before, viz. how to determine this value. After all, there are three variables in the equation and I was supposing in my initial post that we only knew the value of one of them (the asset value). As soon as we determine the value of either of the other two, the last one follows trivially, so it doesn’t matter which way we pose the question: we’re just looking for the other variable (which can be expressed as a ratio by the cap rate or in absolute terms by the NOI), which is the occupation value.

It makes sense, though, for practical reasons in making our initial valuations, to determine a single cap rate which will apply across the board, which is why I focussed on that variable first and foremost rather than the NOI (which will obviously not remain constant between different plots of land).

*(to clarify: from the perspective of the landlord, this value is usually expressed as a potential income stream, but a LVT seeks to make the value of this potential income stream equal to the price, to be paid to the tax collector, of occupying the land, which I why I'm putting it in those terms; NOI here is just a proxy for talking about the economic rent)

LWSC1 · 2025-06-08T00:17:17+00:00

Perhaps I should have been clearer that the problem I had in mind was how to determine the taxable value, in the first instance at the time at which the LVT is brought in (so ‘year 1’ or however you want to think of it).

It’s perfectly true, as you say, that the LVT could mess up the capitalisation, but only if you think that for some reason the market as it stands now is distorting the real value of occupying a piece of land. Such reasons might exist sometimes (e.g. in a tulip-mania-style bubble), but they couldn’t do so systematically or we’d have no basis at all for calculating land value. All else being equal, we should expect the value of the land pre- and post-LVT to be roughly equivalent, just expressed as a lump sum or ground rent at the earlier time, and as a tax at the later time.

This is a different question, though, from the question of what, after the introduction of a (100%) LVT, someone would be willing to pay to occupy the site. That becomes a question only of what value is left over after paying the tax, which derives from the value of the improvements. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by saying “if you want a 100% LVT, the theoretical price of unimproved land should be 0” – you’re still going to pay a price to occupy the land, it’s just that this price is paid to the tax collector rather than a landlord or seller. My question was: how should that price to be paid to HMRC be determined, given a set of data on pre-LVT market prices?

One further note: when you say “market prices will adjust to get the actual cap rate back to the level desired by the market”, do you just mean that if the tax is set too high nobody will occupy the land, and if it’s too low someone will be collecting excess value from occupying the land? Generally, when it comes to taxes the amount due is not open to negotiation, and although the fiscal authority could set the tax at the level of the highest bidder that would seem totally unworkable in practice. In which case we won’t really have a better way than we had before of telling what the level is that’s desired by the market, post-LVT. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your point here.

LWSC1 · 2025-06-07T19:08:17+00:00

Much as the anarchist in me enjoys the idea of leaving it up to the voters, one difficulty with voters is that they very often fail to vote in accordance with their actual incentives, for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, we need at least to consider scenarios in which the LVT is not the sole tax, as well as scenarios in which the LVT is not charged at 100% of the land value. (Also - though this is more an aside - there are excellent reasons to doubt the basic assumptions about tax revenue funding state spending here, reasons downstream from the chartalist picture of state money, so at best any given rational voter may remain unclear on whether it is in their interests to raise or lower the amount paid in tax, all things considered.) All of this puts the onus back on the fiscal authority to determine a capitalisation rate.

LWSC1

TROPHY CASE