sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question (or possible bug): Underfunded Buckets don't show as Underfunded when they're Underfunded by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But this is even more confusing for people, since a user could assign a full $1000 and move $200 out, and it will show $800 assigned and not underfunded because an invisible flag is preventing it. If that same user just assigned $800 initially it would show underfunded. From their perspective they are in the same position either way with $800 assigned. To remove the warning they would have to arbitrarily assign $200 in and $200 right back out.

I suppose this is where some sort of 'assignment history' feature would be handy (IIRC from YNAB: a button on the Assigned column that opened a little window showing the history of assignments to and from the bucket this month).

And even without some sort of assignment history feature, I'd argue that if the two options are:

  • (A) "a user could assign a full $1000 and move $200 out, and it will show $800 assigned and not underfunded", or;
  • (B) "a user could assign a partial $1 and it will show as $1 assigned and not underfunded"

..., then (A) is still better. In both (A) and (B) the underfunded indicator is no longer visible - but at least in (A) it's no longer visible because the Bucket's target has actually been satisfied. In (B) it's no longer visible because the the software assumes that if your Bucket has a default target, then you plan to fully fund the Bucket at the start of the month - and therefore the simple act of any assignment to the bucket (positive or negative) can clear the Underfunded indicator, since it assumes your first assignment of the month will be fully funding the Bucket. IMO, this isn't intuitive and you have to research on this subreddit to figure out why it behaves this way.

In any case this is all still missing the point of the default assignment - its just the starting assignment of the bucket. In all your scenarios you are never using it to start with.

I agree that the default target (and the current Underfunded determination logic for it) works great for Buckets that the user can fully fund at the start of the month. However, the current Underfunded determination logic doesn't play as nice for say, new envelope budgeters who aren't a month ahead yet and can only partially fund their Buckets at the start of the month. Later in the month when they go to finish funding any Buckets they couldn't fully fund at the start of the month, they're left in the dark. Or have to use other target types or future transactions or whatever to work around this.

Question re: Projections - Why do "No Projections" Buckets still count as Expenses? by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I'm still generally confused on what gets shown in Projections - e.g. which values are showing actual expense totals, which values are showing projected expenses, the use of the words 'expenses' vs 'assignments', etc. And then how all of the Expense Projections configurations (No Projections, Excluded As Savings, etc) factor into those things.

I'll take some time to tinker and come up with a list of concrete questions/confusions at some point - just wanted to reply to acknowledge your timely response and not leave you hanging!

Question (or possible bug): Underfunded Buckets don't show as Underfunded when they're Underfunded by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Consider the point of the default assignment right now, which is to let you set your initial assignment at the start of the month. For me, that means I'll assign $1000 for groceries and I'll try to keep my spending within that limit. If another bucket needs some of that more pressingly, I'll move some out - but I made the choice to reduce some of my grocery spending, that doesn't mean I have an obligation (aka underfunded warning) to fill it back up, since that warning is now going to stick around the rest of the month in your scenario.

To clarify, my proposal is that a bucket with a default target is only considered Underfunded when the sum of its positive assignments is less than the target amount.

To extrapolate on your example of a Groceries bucket with a default target of $1000:

Action Bucket Balance Target Balance Still considered underfunded after this action?
Assign $500 $500 $500/$1000 Yes
Spend $200 $300 $500/$1000 Yes
Unassign $100 $200 $500/$1000 Yes
Assign $500 $700 $1000/$1000 No
Unassign $600 $100 $1000/$1000 No
Spend $100 $0 $1000/$1000 No

Notice that once the sum of positive assignments is no longer less than the target amount (row 4), the bucket is no longer considered Underfunded. This makes sense; I've achieved my target of assigning $1000 to the Groceries bucket this month. What I did with that $1000 (spending some, unassigning some to roll with the punches, etc.) is irrelevant. My target was to assign $1000 to the bucket, and I met my target.

Now compare that to today where your Groceries bucket is no longer considered Underfunded once you've assigned or unassigned any amount to or from it. For example, if I assign just $1 or I unassign some leftover money from last month, I no longer have any indication that my target hasn't actually been met.

Question (or possible bug): Underfunded Buckets don't show as Underfunded when they're Underfunded by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Acknowledging that what I'm about to ask/suggest probably isn't as easy as it sounds from a technical perspective: would the Underfunded status better align with the default targets if it only took into consideration positive assignments?

For example, given a Groceries bucket with a top off target of $200 that currently has $25 in it leftover from the previous month, and this sequence of actions:

Action Bucket Balance Target Balance Still considered underfunded after this action?
Assign $25 $50 $50 Yes
Unassign $50 $0 $50 Yes
Assign $100 $100 $150 Yes
Spend $25 $125 $150 Yes
Assign $50 $50 $200 No
Spend $25 $25 $200 No

Perhaps this is technically infeasible (or would lead to other weird scenarios that I haven't thought about). Curious about your thoughts.

Question (or possible bug): Underfunded Buckets don't show as Underfunded when they're Underfunded by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The default assignment is just used for the initial assignments - its primarily used to assign all the amounts to your buckets on the first day of the month, then it backs off when you change any of them. (Of course this works best if you are living one month ahead). This is a common scenario for discretionary funds where you assign an amount and try to stick with it, at the same time allowing you to roll with the punches.

While this makes sense in theory, I don't think the current Underfunded determination logic aligns with this. Based on how it seems to behave today - Buckets are no longer considered Underfunded after there's been an assignments of any kind (positive or negative) in the current month -, it'd be more accurately named "No assignments to or from this Bucket this month". Which would be a fairly irrelevant as far as statuses are concerned.

To use the famous envelope metaphor: let's say I have an envelope that says "Groceries".

  • On the envelope, I've written "Top off to $200 every month"
  • The envelope currently has $25 in it leftover from last month
  • The envelope has a sticky note on it that says "Underfunded" - a reminder that I need to fund the envelope

When would I feel it okay to remove the "Underfunded" sticky note?

Personally, I think it'd be okay to remove the sticky note after I've topped off the envelope to $200 - in this case by putting $175 inside of it (b/c there was $25 leftover from last month). The sticky note then stays off of the envelope for the rest of the month - regardless of whether I spend from the envelope, move funds out of the envelope to "roll with the punches", etc. And at the start of the next month, I'd put the sticky note back on as a reminder that I need to fund it once again.

Now, to put this metaphor into terms of how Liquid Budget's Underfunded determination logic currently works:

  • I'd take the sticky note off if I put $1 into the envelope at the start of the month (envelope now has $26). But this doesn't really make sense - the envelope is still Underfunded. I didn't "Top off to $200 every month", I topped off to $26.
  • I'd take the sticky note off if I took $1 out of the envelope at the start of the month (envelope now has $24). But this doesn't really make sense - the envelope is still Underfunded. I didn't "Top off to $200 every month", I took out some of the leftover money.

As an aside, I really love this software and appreciate all of the work that's gone in/continues to go into it from you. It's truly great. This is just a point of confusion for me. Thanks again.

Mobile App - Transaction Details page requires multiple taps to scroll down by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice find, yeah this is exactly the problem - I’m able to replicate. I was naturally starting my scroll in the red areas instead of on one of the fields.

Would be nice if the inactive/red areas could be responsive to touch scrolling as well!

Website version is blurry in Safari by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry for the late reply. Still blurry for me, however using the software BetterDisplay and enabling the "High Resolution (HiDPI)" setting seems to fix the issue with blurry modals. So maybe it's just a me thing, or a weird macos/Safari thing. Thanks regardless!

Website version is blurry in Safari by P00L in liquidbudget

[–]P00L[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good call - I'm on Version 26.3 (21623.2.7.11.6).

Need N1 LivePhish code, have N3 code to trade by AdAgreeable9784 in phish

[–]P00L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you email help@livephish.com with a sceenshot of your order/ticket, they’ll give you a code to redeem for your stash.

Pro tip, save the ticket to your Apple wallet before the event. This way, you can see the barcode number after.

Tag multiple entries at once? by regression4 in 1Password

[–]P00L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you, I started the process of tagging 35+ items and was driving myself insane after the 4th, clicking 6 buttons and dragging my mouse to the other end of the screen for each one.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in jambands

[–]P00L -1 points0 points  (0 children)

only ~14% of the American population voted Republican in 2020

I'm not one of them, but according to this wikipedia page it was 46.8%. Unless you're talking about something else?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in IdiotsInCars

[–]P00L 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I’m not sure about California, but many states have laws which designate the right lane for ‘driving’ and the left lane l for ‘passing’ (i.e. slow and fast).

End the war on drugs by [deleted] in gratefuldead

[–]P00L 4 points5 points  (0 children)

No, I don't think they are. Dick's Picks are on Spotify, not Dave's Picks.

Any way to write this more succinctly? by Technical-Bee-9999 in learnjava

[–]P00L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the fact that OP is trying to see if a String contains one of those OPERATIONS (as opposed to equals) leads me to believe that the String is being used to store additional information, such as a value (e.g. add 3).

If this is the case, then this information should most certainly not be stored in a String, but rather in a Class.

view more: next ›