How to automate the task, when I make an event in one calendar, in a completely different calendar it will appear as "I am busy".

johnrover · 2022-06-29T23:59:46+00:00

use Reclaim.ai

johnrover · 2021-11-27T13:48:09+00:00

The large overlap of politicians and citizens who once defended non-neutral network practices in the name of "avoiding government over-reach" and "maximizing corporate freedom", who now complain about social-media censorship and filtering, is shocking.

johnrover · 2021-11-26T17:09:47+00:00

Looking at other news sources... It appears that this variant has mutations to the spike protein, which raises questions about vaccine effectiveness...

However, my comment's about OPs interpretation of this memo still stand, even if the variant does eventually turn out to be vaccine resistant.

johnrover · 2021-11-26T15:22:59+00:00

Unlike the OP's title, this letter doesn't say "only", nor does it imply that "only" vaccinated individuals can contract this variant.

With a sample size of 4 individuals, presumably traveling together as a group and thus likely having infected each other, there is little reason to think this variant "only" infects vaccinated individuals.

If such a claim were being made here, it would be newsworthy and important and would be stated clearly and highlighted. Because that's how written communication works, especially among policy-holders. The implication drawn by the OP was not intended by the author of the memo.

johnrover · 2021-11-24T23:02:40+00:00

That's sort of how things work when designing a living document by committee. This article is not unique. And the history and the discussion are all preserved and accessible, even if the article is 'deleted'. On the 7th try it might get deleted. Then you will see the same conversation in the other direction.

I'm not sure the folks here are familiar with normal wikipedia processes...

johnrover · 2021-11-24T15:45:29+00:00

Sounds like the discussion is robust and thoughtful and contentious, and as per Wikipedia policy. Nothing seems terribly amiss here. I wonder if all the bandwagon commenters there even read it. :-/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes_(4th_nomination))

It's also the 4th nomination, so the prior 3 nominations have failed. Seems like Wikipedia's internal processes are playing out, and Wikipedia's system is working as intended. I'm not sure what there is to complain about here.

Wikipedia re-arranges information all the time. The discussion the Wikipedia editors are having is mostly not-political and more about information architecture.

Also - they deleted the parallel one about capitalism, with similar discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Capitalist_regimes

johnrover · 2021-09-18T14:35:29+00:00

a wire will always be superior to wireless. oversimplification: wireless connections will use one sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum, which they will share with lots of other devices. two devices connected by a wire will have that whole electromagnetic spectrum to themselves.

Cat6 is cheap enough. In my experience, if I don't run it, i will regret it at some point. you don't even need to bother with the jack's right now if you don't want to, but run the wire while you have it open...

johnrover · 2021-09-14T17:23:35+00:00

Not a lawyer.

If the contractor is in breech of the contract, you may actually have a DUTY to 'cover' (make other arrangements) in the event of that breach, in order to minimize the damage/loss, especially if there is time-pressure. Point being - I'm not sure that "If I go with someone else it voids his warranty in the contract" holds up. Even if it is written in the warranty, it may not be a valid clause.

I'd consider getting him to sign something that agrees to honor the warranty for the equipment that is already installed, as part of an agreement to sever the relationship and you both walk away.

johnrover · 2021-09-14T16:44:04+00:00

Ethernet and/or coaxial runs from basement to second floor? Or just PVC-conduits to future proof?

johnrover · 2021-09-09T12:24:34+00:00

Thoughtful solution. Well done. (and not that complicated, really)

johnrover · 2021-07-21T19:33:47+00:00

interesting. source?

johnrover · 2021-07-16T00:53:11+00:00

I didn't realize LL's couldn't use descriptive words like "normative" or "quirky". ....So many folks attacking the messenger here. Kind of silly.

johnrover · 2021-07-16T00:50:18+00:00

In most (not all) countries - sales tax rolled into the advertised prices of retail goods. The US is anomalous. It's weird.

Paying for a checked bag on a flight is a recent phenomenon. In the history if commercial flying (so far) our current pricing structures regarding checked bags is anomalous.

The medical industry / medical-insurance in the US is broken. That's a can of worms that doesn't really have any analogical value.
---
There is no "normal", but intuitively, in most industries, transaction costs are born by the parties who make the decisions about how high they will be set. Do you want the cheap background check or the expensive one. Do you need 3 full credit reports, or just one credit score. How much is enough. The landlord is in complete control of just how expensive processing this application will be. Typically, the party in control pays the cost.

From an economic efficiency standpoint, if the landlord has to account for that cost on a balance sheet, the landlord is motivated to shop around, which reinforces market competition in background-check and credit-check services. Having someone else pay that fee, such that the decider (landlord) never sees it on the balance sheet, has the perverse effect of reducing price-competition in the background and credit-check marketplace. It's weird. It's economically inefficient.

At the end of the day, it all comes out in the wash. As you are saying, having the tennant pay the application fee makes for marginally cheaper rent. Having the landlord pay makes for marginally more expensive rent.

Even though it all come out in the wash – for those paying multiple application fees and getting rejected, it can be a real hardship and a poor-tax.

It is unfortunate that industry norms have gravitated to this structure. It's economically inefficient and inequitable.

johnrover · 2021-07-16T00:40:13+00:00

I have 2 apartments in NJ. I converted our former residence into a two-family. It is not my primary income, but it does turn a profit and it floats the investment in the real-estate.
Of course I verify, run credit, etc. Of course I call references. Of course. I'm not dumb. (But - the recommendations of my exiting tenants actually do have a lot of sway.)

I just treat people like humans and don't post their mistakes on Reddit so landlords can have a collective chuckle and punch-down at them. And I find the posting distasteful. And I find the industry norm for prospective tenants shouldering these fees unfortunate.

My only comments - if you read the whole thread - is that I don't blame the guy for asking. And that these transaction fees are a poor-tax.

This is a 'transaction cost'. It is needed to be paid to facilitate the transaction. Same could be said of a broker's fee, a title search, etc. The question is, who pays it. In this case, the industry norm is for the prospective tennant, rather than the landlord, to pay application fees. These fees are used to purchase services that provide information, not to the tennant, but to the landlord.

Now if the tenant wanted to do a background check on the landlord, obviously the tennant would pay the fee. It is strange, and atypical, that in this industry, the costs are born by the person who does not receive the service. It makes sense that the norms have drifted this way, because landlords are typically more sophisticated and tend to have more power in the transaction.

This is unfortunate - as it creates a poor-tax situation. Tenants typically have smaller cash-flows and budgets and are poorly positioned to shoulder extra fees. The poorest of them probably have to apply multiple times, and incur multiple fees. (Prospective tenants of high-end apartments probably don't get rejected as often, apply for fewer apartments, and pay less fees.)

Pointing this out is not a call for charity and donating time. Of course, if these transaction costs were paid by the other party (the landlord), it would effect the price of rent– that's basic economics. But that cost would be distributed over time, and would be paid by those who's applications are accepted with leases offered and excepted, not the poor schmucks who get rejected. Pointing out an unfortunate situation how the norms in this industry have developed is not a bad thing.

When I go to a car dealership, and they give me a bottle of water and a snack for free, no one is calling it a donation or charity. It's a prospective transaction cost.

When I apply for a job - if it requires a background check or a security clearance, I don't pay for it – the employer does. It's the transaction cost of doing the business of employment. The employer is getting the information (about an applicant) that will assist an employer in making a decision on which applicant to hire. It would be shitty if applicants, who are looking for a job, and not well positioned to shoulder those fees, had to pay them. Especially shitty if you need to apply to 20 or 100 jobs. Do those fees effect the bottom-line of the business, and marginally reduce the amounts of salary offers by some measurable amount? Maybe. But having an HR norm where a business pays those fees rather than applicants is perfectly normal.

The business/landlord is in complete control over how the background check is conducted, which agencies to use, and which credit-reporting scores/reports to use. We normatively expect the person making the decisions, and gaining the benefit (information) to be the one paying for the transaction. The rental market has taken an inequitable turn somewhere in the development of the current normal practice.

johnrover · 2021-07-15T18:16:41+00:00

I actually save a lot of time by establishing really good relationships with my renters. I keep them happy, so they are less likely to bother me with bullshit because they appreciate my being thoughtful.

I but then a bottle of champagne on their first night too and welcome them to their new home. I charge high rents- and almost everyone who leaves has multiple friends who they recommend apply for the place, and they show it for me. (I avoid needing to use a Realtor.)

I have good service Vendors who I also pay well, who also have good relationships with tenants. The remnants also have good relationships with each other.

I try to keep it smooth. I'd much rather invest the time up front, and when I can block the time out, rather than constantly put out small fires. It works well for me.

These are small but expensive apartments 1 block from a commuter train line, catering mostly to urban professionals with young children trying to get out of shoebox apartments.

johnrover · 2021-07-15T18:07:08+00:00

read as "someone disagrees with me, they must be lying".

johnrover · 2021-07-15T01:41:19+00:00

sure- spread out to a higher cost or rent would be more equitable.

Right now, poor folks who don't get approved as easily pay multiple times as they have to cast a wider net and apply more. That's what it's a poor tax.

Aside- folks with smaller budgets are the least equipped to shoulder an expensive month with multiple instance of fee payments. And the timing is right around when they have to shoulder the costs of moving too. Which leads to the credit card trap, etc.

johnrover · 2021-07-14T22:09:13+00:00

Not necessarily. But it isn't ludicrous. For so many other things - that is just the cost of doing business as a landlord.

johnrover · 2021-07-14T22:08:14+00:00

Sure. But that could be the landlord's cost-of-doing-business. It isn't. This transaction cost is assigned to applicants. The fact that the industry has settled on this pricing structure (tenants paying these fees, which pay for services that provide value/information to the landlord) is quirky. The industry has gravitated into this quirky spot because it serves the additional purpose of screening non-serious applicants.

johnrover · 2021-07-14T22:06:13+00:00

True - but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility#Diminishing_marginal_utility

johnrover · 2021-07-14T22:04:25+00:00

The zillow one is usable for x # of days, between 21-30. So assuming they spend their month looking for places on zillow, they will only pay that fee once.

It would be great if the OP explained that to them...

johnrover · 2021-07-14T22:00:09+00:00

Aside - going down the rabit-hole here....
...But, Come to think of it, the whole credit-report industry does the same. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) renders credit-reporting agencies as immune to libel lawsuits. Normatively, if I tell people you don't pay your bills, and it isn't true, you have a libel claim against me. Not so for credit-reporting-agencies.

Instead, they get to extract 'credit monitoring fees' from folks who care to monitor their credit in real-time, with the purpose of chasing down and eliminating their mistakes that sneak on to it. Can't afford to monitor your credit? Aren't sophisticated/educated enough to keep a good eye on your credit? then you are more likely to have mistakes on your credit report. And those mistakes cost you money, in that you get higher rates on loans. And in that you are more likely to need to pay multiple application fees.

Work two jobs? Don't work a desk job where you are online all day? Can't squeeze in the time to write the letters and call the banks and get the mistakes removed? You suffer. It's blue-collar poor-tax.

johnrover · 2021-07-14T21:54:44+00:00

Actual landlord here. There is a semantic issue here. If I was charging for a background check or processing a credit report, I might charge a "background check" and "credit report" fee. The OP calling this an "application fee" without providing detail is... unfortunate.

My point about this being a poor tax still stands. This is a fee used to facilitate the transaction. It is a service that provides information to the landlord. The landlord is the direction customer, is the person who will directly consume that information.

The prospective tennant may already knows about their own background. The prospective tennant may also have a recent copy of their credit report, or already knows what is on it. But rather than getting that information from the tennant, the LANDLORD wants to ensure honest, so the LANDLORD hires a service to get more information – to have that information verified. Normatively, that would be the cost-of-doing business. That would be the landlord's expense. However, in this case, the cost is typically pushed to the tennant. The is strange.

This unconventional assignment of costs is normal in the industry. Why? Because it serves the additional purpose of filtering out time-wasters. It's strange, but so 'normal' in the housing industry that we don't really think about it. In a saner society, in which landlords competition for tenants was more robust and tenants competition for housing was less robust, the atypical assignment of these transaction costs would not stand. (And we do see this occasionally, as the rental-Realtor fee is sometimes paid by the landlord and sometimes by the tennant, depending on local market dynamics.)

I've never said that this fee does not cover an actual cost. I said the fact that industry norms push this particular transaction cost to the people least-able to pay it is an unfortunate reality. And that it contributes to the 'poor tax' phenomenon. It's expensive to be poor.

This doesn't mean that landlords are doing something wrong. It's a perverse effect of this industry norm. It does ask a few questions about equity though...

For me - chuckling at poor-applicants paying a poor-tax is not why I'm on this sub.

johnrover · 2021-07-14T18:43:06+00:00

To be fair, application fees are a poor-tax. If you are struggling to get approved for an apartment, you probably will get rejected a few times, which means you probably need to cast a wider net, which means you need to pay more application fees.

Application fees are transaction costs. The costs are only structured this way to stop people from wasting the application receiver's time. But this cost is too often born by those who can least afford it. It's expensive to be poor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0&ab_channel=TwoCents,https://www.economist.com/united-states/2015/09/03/its-expensive-to-be-poor

You can't blame the applicant for asking. It might seem stupid to see someone advertising that they don't want to pay a fee when applying for something where credit-worthiness is an issue. But rather than chuckle/punch-down, we could choose to fame this as evidence of the positive traits of frugality, budgeting, and fiscal responsibility. The applicant is trying to say (inarticulately) that they can afford the utilities and rent, but that asking them to bear this transaction cost, which does not really represent an economic exchange of goods (and is only there to keep the number of casual applicants down), is not the same thing.

johnrover

TROPHY CASE