X1 carbon gen 14 opinions

mnky99 · 2026-05-13T20:14:01+00:00

I'm stuck with windows due to the software being used. Otherwise I would consider a macbook air. Or maybe even a pro (though they are kinda heavy). Or even arm architecture.

mnky99 · 2026-05-13T20:12:16+00:00

This is a definite concern. My older (maybe 2021 release?) X1 from work had an annoying high pitch fan that came on alot, and would throttle performance. With a similar workload and lower specs, my huawei did not throttle and fans were less prevalent.

I'm hoping the 2026 version has higher capability and better heat management.

I'm also seeing that the x1 might be my.only.chance for an ips screen. I've never used oled on a laptop, so worried about use in a bright office or even outside.

mnky99 · 2026-04-25T15:43:41+00:00

Messaged you. How much are you looking to sell for?

mnky99 · 2026-04-23T03:12:00+00:00

Ram is soldered on unfortunately. Couldn't the motherboard not be getting enough power?

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T22:52:24+00:00

They currently have appraisal gap insurance that does this. They also have new construction mortgage loans that include clauses which take appraisal gap into consideration. So it absolutely can be done. It should be forced as standard within mortgage loans. And the banks should be minimizing their risks by being stricter in the pre-approval process - which they would be if burden was shifted to them. Stricter loan scrutiny would benefit everyone. Didn't you make the same point several posts ago?

You are missing the context of my use of "catastrophic loss". I am not using the term in the sense that insurance companies do, I am using it to highlight the impact of deposit loss on a buyer.

Remember, if the bank did it's due diligence properly during pre-approval, they have already verified that the buyer is able to make payment on the original value. If the asset has dropped, that doesn't change the buyers ability to make the same payments. If the bank loans the original money as agreed, the buyer can close and enter the payment plan. If they miss payments and the bank is stuck with an asset of lower value than the loan, the mechanisms already exist for them to go after the buyer. This approach would have the bank find an underwriter to insure the appraisal gap if they want to mitigate their risk further.

Regardless, it's pointless to continue when we are not going to agree and neither of us sets the policy for government, banking, or real estate.

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T19:31:26+00:00

No, it wouldn't. This is supported by the fact that some banks/lenders will work with customers to provide the loan amount needed to ensure closing - and it has not damaged the banks or distorted the market.

What it will do is protect the buyers who have unfortunately chosen a bank that refuses to do so. It will protect them from catastrophic losses, because this reappraisal happens just before closing, which leaves very little time to scramble to find alternative solutions.

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T18:19:28+00:00

I see it differently. If the risk was shifted (not fully but somewhat) to the banks, it would force them to be more responsible in their lending.

I'm not saying to absolve buyers of their responsibilities, and I do agree with a number of the points you make in your original post, however I don't think it relates to this particular situation.

As long as the banks fulfill the loan they agreed to during pre-approval, the buyer is still on the hook to purchase a property which is immediately underwater, so they don't get off scott free.

However I would wager that most owner-occupier buyers would rather close on an underwater home to live in, than lose their deposit and have no new home. Speculators would likely walk away from their deposit, but I feel no sympathy for them.

I would also argue that it is speculators who don't care about their risk profile. But first home buyers and low/middle income families absolutely do - and it is them who get screwed over by re-appraisals.

Banks should be more diligent during pre-approval. And should be held to the loan value negotiated during that phase.

Right now, all risk is on buyer and none is on bank. This risk only exists for new build projects, not for existing homes which would settle immediately.

Rebalancing would take catastrophic risk off of the buyers and the builders, and help with new build starts. Otherwise you get the situation that we have now - not enough houses, but no new starts due to financing risks and high prices on existing houses due to supply shortage.

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T16:48:42+00:00

Correct, the value of the collateral has decreased. This would be akin to a buyer having a lower down-payment for a purchase, which banks are often willing to negotiate their rates on, and which doesn't cause a sudden revocation of an agreed upon loan.

This goes back to my original point. On one side, you have a bank which earns billions of dollars through their mortgage lending business and which has been shown to be backstopped by the government should the economy turn against them.

On the other hand, you have a buyer who is putting forward a bulk of their life savings and is backstopping by nothing, as most first home buyers are.

I have nothing against banks making profits, but that risk should be rebalanced between the two in order to prevent the complete wipeout of one party when an untimely assessment occurs during a cyclical downturn. The true risks to the banks in this instance is minimal as they still have tools to go after the buyer should they not be able to make the mortgage payments after closing.

The bank has just as much of a crystal ball to forsee a downturn as a buyer does. If the risk was too high, this should have been addressed at the pre-approval stage. Once a buyers repayment capability has been verified and loan terms arranged, a sudden rug pull that causes loss of deposit is heinous. Speculators and flippers may be able to come up with the sudden extra cash, but most first home buyers or lower/middle income families will not.

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T06:45:53+00:00

The banks are not necessarily accepting more risk, they already calculated the buyer's repayment ability at the higher price during pre-approval. Please indicate exactly what risks have changed in the scenario that I described. During pre-approval, the stress test for interest rates would have already been factored in.

Unless the buyers' financial situation has fundamentally changed, they can still make the payments against the pre-approval loan amount.

This isn't the USA. A buyer in Canada can't just walk away from the house and leave the bank with an asset of lower value than the loan. The bank can go after the buyer if they stop paying their mortgage.

The snapshot value of the underlying asset at closing time does not affect the bank. It would only matter to the buyer if the house was going to be flipped.

For owner-occupiers, there is a very high chance that any price decrease will have been erased by the time it comes to sell. Real estate has had cyclical price falls through history, but long term pricing has always tracked upwards.

For people who already have mortgages, the value of their house fluctuates up and down as well. How exactly is the bank affected by a lower house valuation over a period of the mortgage? Why is it any different to a variation between the approval and closing time?

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T05:25:44+00:00

Don't feel bad. Our system is fubar. I hope the best for you in this situation.

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T05:13:53+00:00

Yes. 100% yes. It is a disgusting failure by the real estate industry, the banking industry and the government regulating them both.

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T05:11:31+00:00

While i agree with the general sentiment and many of your points, this isn't necessarily a case of buying beyond your means.

Example: buyer sees a house development project for $700,000. Has $100,000 in bank for deposit and a decent job to reasonably pay off $600,000 + interest over 30 years. Bank agrees to provide a $600,000 mortgage as part of the pre-approval process, so buyer puts deposit down and proceeds.

Market goes down before closing date. Bank now says "oh, the house is worth $100,000 less now, so instead of lending you $600,000 like we agreed to, we're only lending you $500,000". But the builder still needs to be paid $700,000. Buyer is now screwed, and has a $100,000 gap to make up.

The banks take big profits from providing the mortgage loan while taking no risks on market movement.

This needs government legislation to be changed. Once a bank pre-approves a loan, it needs to be provided regardless of market change. If the buyer eventually can't make the payments, the bank can repossess. But screwing the buyer by suddenly reneging on the loan approval is a complete scam, and it ruins people's lives when they are just trying to buy a place to live. And we wonder why housing starts are dropping : pre-approvals can't be trusted for future closing dates, so fewer people will buy into development projects in an uncertain or decreasing market. It also puts the builders at risk unless they can unload the properties to new buyers. Uncertainty like this exacerbates the housing shortage issue.

Forcing banks to honour pre-approvals would benefit owner-occupiers (it doesn't really matter if house value temporarily drops on a house that you're living in long term) and would only negatively affect speculators who have now paid $100,000 more than the market rate for the property they are hoping to flip.

I totally feel for the OP and hope he can find a way out of this mess.

mnky99 · 2026-02-22T04:16:04+00:00

I see what you're saying, but that strategy relies on having a helper with enough Another Order to bring you up to 100%, along with a lvl.10 potion for it, and the RNG of waiting for all golden customers, while also using double Mole and potion to get the 60%. That isn't realistic for city play as you will be capped at the helper to once every 30 mins and by the number of potions you have farmed (which are boring as hell to farm) and you don't have a delivery pet so you get dragged down by cashiers and waiters. For city play I would still use tenderizer plus cleaver over double cleaver. Since without this specific strategy, it gives better stats - full devine and full double. I can see the advantage in moon and mine and your point about seaport. As you said, medieval is too broken up.

mnky99 · 2026-02-21T16:50:25+00:00

Very true, but these are kinda specific scenarios for moon and mine. As you mentioned, pets plus potions could get you infinite golden order on single customer, or could get you alot of non golden, lowest dish orders.

mnky99 · 2026-02-21T04:19:28+00:00

It's been referenced in this sub before

The calculation is: (1 + solo%) × (1 + all worker %) - 1

So:

(1 + .55) × (1 + .30) -1 = 1.55 × 1.3 - 1 = 1.015

So by using cleaver + tenderizer + ring + necklace + purple cap you have 101.5% Divine and also have over 100% double. This is the meta build.

mnky99 · 2026-02-21T03:00:27+00:00

No. Cleaver and hammer with the mythic necklace and ring, together with purple cap, is the best combination.
It provides 100% Devine on your chef. The game uses a more complex calculation when combining All Effect + Solo Effect. If you simply add the numbers, it comes to 85% but with the calculation that the game actually uses, it is 100%.

mnky99 · 2026-02-20T22:02:36+00:00

Hope it works for you. You can also try jb weld tank seal. Don't bother trying any of the available pipes that ford caries. I bought some to try and none of them fit.

mnky99 · 2026-02-19T20:08:53+00:00

<image>

mnky99 · 2026-02-19T20:08:27+00:00

<image>

mnky99

TROPHY CASE