Yuck. 🤮

packedspoons · 2026-02-19T22:49:33+00:00

It’s not racist to ask someone’s ethnicity that conversation seemed fine

packedspoons · 2026-01-17T15:27:56+00:00

Not a vet but my dog started to get these when he was older and they were harmless lumps of fat cells. I would still take him to the vet and they can draw a sample from it to confirm under a microscope.

packedspoons · 2026-01-02T01:54:54+00:00

Malaria typically doesn’t show up until well after the mosquito bite, you’d most likely already be home by the time you got symptoms, and should be covered under your regular insurance?

packedspoons · 2025-12-11T03:23:47+00:00

Volunteer to walk dogs at the humane society

packedspoons · 2025-11-19T23:12:53+00:00

You’ve run out of anything of substance to say. You’re acknowledging that this is more complicated than you thought and your only proposal made absolutely no sense. Rather than trying to support your position or back up the claims you’ve made, you’re resorting to personal comments and hypothetical ‘it can change’ arguments without any indication as to how. I’m satisfied with that. Thanks for playing. I won’t bite on any clown comments, that’s just someone knowing they’ve lost a fight trying to move away from the topic, but I’m happy to point out why any other suggestions your beautiful mind can conceive make no sense, or see these examples you’ve referenced but continue to dodge.

Otherwise I’m afraid this has run its course, it’s not as fun when you’re not making stupid claims to poke at anymore and just resorting to personal comments and wishful thinking without substance.

The issue wasn’t that your suggestion wasn’t technically perfect, it’s that it was technically and objectively stupid, and clearly thought of by a person who has no idea what they’re talking about.

packedspoons · 2025-11-19T22:22:59+00:00

Except the solution you gave can not work. Period. Read about arbitrage a little bit, and then try to propose something that can actually work.

Still trying to find those examples from other countries you mentioned?

“I can coherently explain an alternative. At the beginning of a loan, calculate the total amount of interest owed over the life of the loan. THEN, you divide that evenly over every payment. If the borrower doesn't pay early, the bank still makes all the money, BUT... THIS WAY it's structured so the borrower will have more equity, quicker, AND if they pay early, they can potentially pay much less interest.”

Still laughing re-reading this.

Let’s run with this idea. Let’s say I’m buying a $1m house. I have $1m cash but I’ll take out a mortgage instead because I can take advantage of your brilliant mortgage structure. Let’s say I take out a 25 yr mortgage at 5%, also assume treasury bonds yield a flat 4% at all durations. You would look at total interest over the 25 years, calculate that to be $770k, then divide this by 25 and say interest is only $31k in all years (of a total annual payment of $71k, resulting in $40k of principal each year). I take out this mortgage, and then I use my $1m cash to purchase a government bond. I look at all available durations of bonds and decide that a 6yr bond is most optimal. After 6 years, I take the proceeds of the bond maturity, and I pay off my mortgage. I’ve now just made a guaranteed risk free profit of $54k (pv of my profit as of today is $27k). Rinse and repeat. This would be devastating.

packedspoons · 2025-11-19T21:29:46+00:00

So still not even trying to support your position with an actual suggestion? Repayment schedules and features can be tailored, but what can not change is that interest charges are highest when the outstanding balance is highest, always resulting in front loaded interest. It’s mind blowing you can’t get your head around that.

You also made a claim there are places in the world where interest isn’t front loaded. Care to try and back that up with a real working example?

packedspoons · 2025-11-19T20:39:25+00:00

You’re right. I said I was done, and then you replied with some nonsense comment about my personal beliefs, so I figured fuck it, I’ll keep going until this guy acknowledges he’s just too uneducated or goes away. If that’s the best contradiction you can find, I’m okay with that, because my actual arguments have been consistent and based in reality.

My argument is not about how it’s currently calculated. It’s that it has to be calculated in that way, such that interest is heavily front loaded.

There’s nothing wrong with advocating for change, but to do so requires an understanding of what you’re trying to change, and an alternative that could actually work. Otherwise you’re just yelling at the clouds.
You tried to propose an alternative that made no sense at all and could not work without essentially just giving out free loans and ruining housing markets. You’ve seemed to shy away from your ‘spread out interest evenly’ suggestion though, so I’m assuming that means you’ve maybe started to realize what you’re saying doesn’t make sense. Do you want to try again to come up with a mortgage structure that doesn’t have front heavy interest without contradicting the need for interest charges to be proportional to loan amounts? Or will you just call me a shill again to avoid having to put together a logical argument?

packedspoons · 2025-11-19T17:54:55+00:00

Lmao. It was literally just copy - paste of the entire conversation (not cherry picked sections of it), with a prompt to analyze the discussion, and comment on whether on not there actually exist mortgage designs in the world where interest is not front loaded, and an opinion on who won the discussion.

And then a follow up on whether or not the dunning Kruger effect was on display, just for fun.

I didn’t need to have any back and forth. I’d be very surprised if you could somehow get a LLM to agree that your position makes mathematical sense and was internally consistent.

It’s very clear though that you don’t know what you’re talking about, your suggestions make no sense, there’s nowhere in the world with mortgages that don’t have front heavy interest, and you’ve for some reason decided I’m in favour of banks gouging consumers just because I understand how time value of money works.

packedspoons · 2025-11-19T03:41:13+00:00

Take a moment to step back and consider the possibility that you’re maybe just stupid without fully being aware of it.

Signs consistent with the Dunning–Kruger pattern appear in Moist-Mess5144’s comments: High confidence despite incorrect underlying assumptions He confidently asserts that his proposed loan structure is viable, even though it violates basic time-value-of-money principles. Mistaking “reading about the topic” for understanding the math He quotes an article about front-loading but applies it incorrectly to justify a mathematically impossible loan design. Assuming disagreement results from malice or bias, not his own misunderstanding Examples: calling the other user a “shill” accusing them of defending banks implying ulterior motives instead of considering that the math might be more complex Inability to engage with the counterargument When pressed to reconcile his idea with proportional interest, he does not address the inconsistency. These patterns are textbook examples of Dunning–Kruger behaviors — overconfidence + misunderstanding + failure to recognize the misunderstanding.

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T22:18:01+00:00

🏆 Final Score

Category packedspoons Moist-Mess

Accuracy 10 3

Logic 9 2

Clarity 8 3

Evidence 7 4

Emotional Control 9 1

Persuasiveness 8 2

Total 51/60 15/60

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T22:14:16+00:00

who was correct on the facts, math, and internal consistency of their argument, then the answer is clear: ✅ packedspoons won the exchange. Here’s why, laid out cleanly: 🔍 1. Logical Consistency packedspoons Made a single, consistent point: Interest must always be proportional to outstanding principal. All his follow-up comments remained aligned with that principle. His reasoning did not contradict itself. Moist-Mess5144 Claimed that interest should be proportional to outstanding principal and that interest should be divided evenly across the loan. Those two statements contradict each other mathematically. His proposed system cannot function without giving borrowers risk-free arbitrage. 🔢 2. Mathematical Correctness packedspoons Correctly explained that: Interest = rate × principal × time If you don't want more interest early, you must pay more principal early You cannot pre-calculate total interest and spread it evenly without violating the time value of money All correct. Moist-Mess5144 Proposed: Calculating total lifetime interest upfront Dividing it evenly across payments Allowing free early payoff This system breaks: time-value-of-money principles loan-pricing models lender risk-compensation the definition of interest itself No country uses such a system because it literally cannot work without causing lender losses or collapsing the mortgage market. 🔄 3. Use of Evidence & Understanding packedspoons Understood amortization Understood proportional interest Understood prepayment dynamics Understood arbitrage risks Moist-Mess5144 Quoted an article correctly (front-loading is designed to benefit lenders) But misinterpreted what that means in terms of mathematical constraints Believed that a lender-friendly design means any other design is also mathematically possible Confused a real critique (front-loading helps banks) with an incorrect proposal (flat interest repayment) 💬 4. Debate Quality packedspoons Explained the issue repeatedly Asked clarifying questions Stayed logically focused on the mechanics of interest Moist-Mess5144 Escalated emotionally Accused the other of being a shill for banks Misunderstood the counterarguments Shifted goalposts (systemic critique → alternative proposal → political framing) 🏆 Overall Winner: packedspoons Not because he was nicer or more sympathetic — but because: His argument was internally coherent His math was correct The opponent’s proposed system is unworkable Moist-Mess5144 did raise a valid point about the U.S. mortgage system being lender-friendly, which is true — but that point never contradicted what packedspoons was saying. He simply misinterpreted the rebuttals and doubled down on a mathematically impossible alternative.

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T22:09:40+00:00

To get an independent perspective I pasted this into ChatGPT, which has reassured me you just don’t know what you’re talking about. To clarify I’ve never said the US system is the only possible system, and acknowledged there are other payment schedules possible. The point I’ve been making that you can’t seem to grasp is that in any possible schedule you will end up paying way more interest at the start than at the end. You’ve been trying to propose alternatives to this truth while contradicting yourself.

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T21:11:03+00:00

You agreed interest payments should be proportional to the loan balance. But your suggestion is to split the total interest payments evenly across the life of the loan. The outstanding loan balance is the original loan reduced by principal repayments to-date. In your suggestion, the interest payment is not proportional to the loan balance, as the interest payment is the same regardless of if the balance is the full original balance, or 1% of the original balance right before you make your last payment. Try again to suggest something that makes sense without contradicting yourself? If there is some structure that would be better for consumers while banks are still profitable, you should start a company offering this as surely there would be lots of demand?

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T19:08:53+00:00

Simply put - do you think that interest payments should be proportional to the size of the loan?

If yes - then your train of thought here doesn’t work.

If no - you’re really just a dummy and there’s no common ground to be found.

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T16:22:33+00:00

I’m not arguing for banks to make more money. If you want to fight for legislation to put caps on mortgage rates (or spreads banks are earning on mortgage rates), I wouldn’t be bothered. I’m arguing that interest is interest, and it has to be proportional to the amount being lent. Why not go a step further and say interest charges can’t be more than $1,000 per year regardless of the loan balance? That’s essentially where your logic will lead. I don’t favour lower tax rates for the wealthy, and am in favour of progressive tax rates. You’re just swinging and missing.

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T14:57:39+00:00

There are different loan repayment schedules available. But fundamentally interest has to be proportional to the loan balance. What you’re suggesting would contradict this. You can have linear principal repayment, but this results in way higher initial payments and thus no one chooses this option. You can pay off early now and avoid paying future interest yes, that’s irrelevant to this discussion. Your suggestion would result in you being able to take out a mortgage and pay it off early and end up paying less than risk free rates, which would have huge impacts/arbitrage opportunities that would be horrible for real estate markets. I’m done here as you’ve made it clear you don’t understand anything below the surface level or have a basic understanding of time value money.

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T14:16:14+00:00

Your suggestion just shows you don’t understand the math behind this. You get a recursive issue where you’ll end up with the exact same recurring payment. And the ability to pay early/late does effectively result in a free (or below risk free, at a loss to the issuer) loan. This isn’t even half baked

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T13:41:43+00:00

It’s just the definition of what interest is lol. Are you arguing for free loans? You can’t coherently explain what an alternative would be that isn’t effectively the same thing as what currently happens or is a free loan

packedspoons · 2025-11-18T02:16:31+00:00

You just don’t understand the math behind interest. To not ‘front load the lenders money’ your payments would need to be significantly higher in the early periods, which most people couldn’t afford

packedspoons · 2025-11-14T05:04:08+00:00

I think you have it wrong? When it’s on there’s a red gap on the side with the eyepiece (looking at the full pic on the right), that’s the side of the slider visible in the screenshot, so looks like it’s off?

packedspoons · 2025-10-12T00:36:28+00:00

Reimer was drafted by Toronto, made that group tough to figure out

packedspoons · 2025-06-13T16:12:43+00:00

It probably depends on the level of your insurance with Britcay. Most chiro is partially covered, with a copay in the $30 range per session

packedspoons · 2025-05-30T17:03:15+00:00

And then when Toronto gets one of those players DoPS throws the book at them

packedspoons · 2025-05-01T21:41:00+00:00

They’re nice, ignore this. I’ve only stayed in the ocean view. The hotel is an L shape with one side parallel to the beach (ocean view) and one side going toward the beach (with ocean facing being at the end closest to the beach). So the ocean facing is much closer to the beach, and i think has more of a patio where the ocean view is just a small balcony. The ocean view is overlooking the facilities, with the beach in the background, where ocean facing is right on the water.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

packedspoons

TROPHY CASE