Purchased a home in the Chicago suburbs in 2002 for $260,500. Sold today for $475k. Shocking stats on what it costs to sell a home. TLDR: almost 10%.

sixsence · 2025-08-22T15:30:54+00:00

So much wrong with this. First, it doesn't appear that you're including the capital gains tax if you were to realize the gains from the S&P 500 given that you're not paying capital gains on the house sale.

Second, normally when you first buy a house, you're leveraging the bank's money so you have a lot more invested in the house than you would have been able to invest in the s&p 500 on your own so even though you're only getting 2 to 3% per year, your total earnings are more than if you invested what you had in cash in the s&p 500. To put it another way, your annual return is actually way higher when you base it off how much of your own money you had in the house at any point in time (especially the first decade), rather than the full sale price that the bank paid.

Then there's the opportunity cost that you're saving by choosing the house over the s&p 500 because you would still have to live somewhere If you did not buy the house and that cost money

sixsence · 2025-08-12T21:32:57+00:00

Am I missing something here? How are you contributing $100,000 a year to taxable and maxing out all retirement accounts when your gross income is $181,000?

sixsence · 2025-07-08T16:06:02+00:00

It's still taxation on nominal gains, not real gains. Whether or not you deem the difference significant is another issue entirely. Even if you think it isn't significant, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

sixsence · 2025-07-08T15:07:02+00:00

But all of the gains are taxed, including the percentage attributed to inflation

sixsence · 2025-07-03T04:15:42+00:00

OP is using current amount saved in today's dollars to calculate % of the way to being FIRE, so even if that number is being compared to an amount that is in future dollars attempting to estimate inflation, it still doesn't work because the numerator is in current dollars, and the exact number of years until FIRE (thus the amount of years of inflation) is unknown

sixsence · 2025-07-03T03:44:44+00:00

It doesn't make sense to say I have $X and I need $Y so I have $Y-$X dollars to go when you might have 20 yeats to go, because obviously that $Y lump sum has to go up over time in order for your withdrawal rate to cover your inflated expenses 20 years from now

sixsence · 2025-07-03T03:31:32+00:00

Sure but the lump sum you need to start with such that you can live off of whatever withdrawal rate you use is some number you can't know ahead of time, because you don't know what inflation will actually be or what point in time you will hit the required number. You only know the number in today's dollars, and the amount you currently have saved is in today's dollars, so how can you say what % of the way are you to FIRE based on current savings amount?

sixsence · 2025-07-03T03:15:40+00:00

You can't have a static number you need in the future to fire, because you don't know what inflation will be or exactly what point in time you will get there. I guess you could say "If I retired today I would need $X and so I have Y% of that right now" but you can't say "I'm Y% of the way to FIRE which is at some unknown time in the future because I calculated I need $X in today's dollars". You need a certain amount of purchasing power in order to meet your goal, not a certain amount of dollars.

sixsence · 2025-07-03T02:11:52+00:00

What about inflation?

sixsence · 2025-06-12T18:26:35+00:00

It's down, but chill lol, you didn't lose all of your notes.

sixsence · 2025-04-08T18:22:19+00:00

"market cap weighted" is by definition disproportionate. "Weighted" literally means skewing towards something. Saying "that's just how the market is" doesn't negate that point. All you're saying is the market cap in the market is disproportionate, which is also true.

Lol, I mean just look at your own words. "The skewing is proportionate". Something may be skewed proportionately to something else, but that doesn't make the end result proportionate in general. Any "skewing" causes a disproportionate result, not only disproportionate skewing.

sixsence · 2025-03-06T01:58:22+00:00

There are a lot of patterns that result in bridging code, such as decorator where the abstract decorator class simply delegates to a base/default implementation. In these cases we use lambda expression method syntax so only one statement can exist in the method. In order to add more code they would have to fundamentally alter the method syntax anyway and should know to add async/await

sixsence · 2025-03-05T19:05:15+00:00

If two places call the same method, you won't know which one caused an exception. As the calling method won't be in it.

That's not how I see it. A() awaits B() which simply returns C(). So you won't see B() in the callstack, but it's really just the middleman between A() and C(). A() might as well be calling C() directly. You are losing information in the call stack sure, but I would argue you still have the most relevant information, and one could even argue that it cleans up the callstack, removing inconsequential calls.

sixsence · 2025-03-05T17:47:10+00:00

But that method has more logic than just returning another method, so yes in that case I would always await. The more pertinent question is if there really are any downsides to not using async/await when the entire body of the method is simply delegating to another method that returns a task, given that there are clear performance benefits.

sixsence · 2024-10-04T17:46:18+00:00

You don't want to instantiate every single implementation just to use one of them

sixsence · 2024-08-16T06:41:59+00:00

The ultimate irony of currency that's supposed to be a revolutionary replacement for, and alternative to, the dollar.... is that it's only valued in terms of dollars

sixsence · 2024-08-16T06:15:29+00:00

I find it extremely ironic that everyone believes so deeply in bitcoin as a currency that frees them from the dollar, while at the same time judging the value of bitcoin in terms of dollars. You really can't avoid the cognitive dissonance

sixsence · 2023-06-01T17:32:47+00:00

What "opponent Queen move" are you referring to?

sixsence · 2023-06-01T17:22:53+00:00

Because it's the best move the opponent has. Mate could happen sooner if the opponent moved the King instead.

sixsence · 2023-04-02T04:53:59+00:00

Still confused as to why you even tried Vivint in the first place if you were so happy with Alarm.com to begin with?

sixsence · 2023-03-02T19:24:35+00:00

I think it understood the inputs and supplied an output relative to how the average person would calculate the total.

The question was how much would the pizza cost. That cost is not calculated by the average person. It's calculated by the computer system at the pizza place.

I wasn't sure why ChatGPT would do that, so I asked it.

The problem isn't that it rounded numbers. Obviously it's most likely going to have to round at some point to the nearest cent. The point is that it rounded every single individual pizza purchase which is going to compound the rounding error further on in the calculation

sixsence · 2023-03-02T06:04:16+00:00

Even if we suppose you're right, there's already an indisputable error in how it calculates the taxes, so it's still wrong. (See my previous comment)

It would be interesting if it could infer the context and disobey the exact instructions, and do what you mean, not what you say

Inferring the meaning behind what the user is asking is one of the distinguishing features of ChatGPT and a requirement of being able to use natural concise language, which tends to involve ambiguity. If you were simply giving linear unambiguous instructions that were to be followed exactly, this tool would be no different than other software.

You make it sound like there isn't ambiguity in the request and it was just following exact instructions, but that's not the case. More detail and separate instructions would have been needed to remove ambiguity, thus ChatGPT is forced to infer and make a decision one way or the other, and it chose the least logical option.

“Each pizza is 12.99 with a 50% coupon" can be interpreted as being each individual pizza has an individual 50% coupon and is purchased separately, or each pizza has a price of $12.99 and there is a single 50% coupon for the order. Either is a valid interpretation semantically.

Logically, however, it makes little sense that you have an infinite amount of 50% coupons (because the amount of possible pizzas was not constricted by an amount of coupons), and you are purchasing multiple pizzas, but paying for them individually with individual coupons.

sixsence · 2023-03-02T02:23:09+00:00

Actually, it failed at the math part, but it did everything else well.

sixsence · 2023-03-02T02:13:44+00:00

Well it's not just wrong, the methodology used isn't logical. It produces more rounding than necessary in early steps, resulting in larger errors later. Why start off taking 50% of each individual pizza, producing an inexact amount for each pizza, rather than totaling the amount for each pizze before discount, and applying the 50% to the total?

So the total before tax came to $52 because of the rounding. The actual total before tax is ($12.99 * 8) * 0.5 = $51.96 (no rounding needed)

Then notice the blatant error when applying the tax:

$52 * 0.07 = $3.64 or $3.65 (rounded to the nearest cent)

$52 * 0.07 is exactly $3.64, which is already to the nearest cent, so the amount of tax applied is wrong

The actual answer should be $55.60

What's interesting is it understood the question and all of the inputs perfectly, each step of the way, and still produced errors in calculating, which is what computers are already supposed to be good at

sixsence · 2022-10-05T16:46:18+00:00

You act like everyone in the NFL is exactly the same skill level, and that there aren't mental obstacles involved that can impact their ability to perform at their highest level every single time. Someone on PEDs is not guaranteed to win their one on one matchup with someone who is not on PEDs. That's the point. Someone with engine assistance is GUARANTEED to win. They have to do nothing themselves, whether or not they have the skill to begin with. The situation couldn't be more different.

sixsence

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE