@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Yup. And there's a distinct/direct correlation between guns and crime and the Democrat Party.

Please expand that thought.

@pmoncho said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Another possible reason I thought of was, sheer boredom with "idle hands."

Heck, "They started quarreling out of sheer boredom" is used as the example in the Cambridge dictionary.

So to that end:

I'm wondering if lately, the whole trophy for everyone/entitlement mentality is a driving force for younger people doing this.

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

EDIT 2: Switzerland. Every household has a gun. It's mandatory service there. Where's the mass shootings?

We have one of the highest per capita firearms ownership up here and yet where are the mass shootings?

Why is that? Why would the focus be on disarming the US as a nation? What could the possible motive be for removing over 300M firearms from We the People's hands?

I think another issue we have is that we are looked at as a single country (of course which we are) but really we shouldn't be. At best we should be look regionally or only at the state level. That would put us comparably much closer to the rest of the world. Granted we'll have places like Nebraska/S. Dakota/N. Dakota/Montanna have super low populations compared to our landmasses.. but still.. stop looking at the USA as a single thing - and break it into more closely related parts for your comparisons.

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people and with all manner of devices.
Joker: "I'm going to make this pencil disappear." SLAM

Exactly - the difference that the gun haters all say - those other methods rarely affect the mass amount that guns do. Truck through a parade, a bomb, etc.. there are still ways to have mass causalities.

@PhlipElder said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

EDIT: As far as "mass shootings" go, why is the perp's mental illness background never mentioned or only in brief do we see "they were a loner" "they kept to themselves" and so on?

uh - what? that seems to be the central theme as of late - many who do this were "known dangers" yet knowing was/could be done about it - almost always leading to - we should have stricter universal background checks.

But things like HIPAA would prevent typical mental health from ever being part of those records until after a person is accused of a crime, personal opinions start to fly from neighbors, co-workers, etc. now the person is branded mentally unstable, etc...

@pmoncho said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender

I believe, haven't worked it all out yet, it starts with the break down of the core family figures creating an unstable foundation.

Outside factors (Main Street Media, politicians, Social Media, etc..) pile on top of the initial break down which leads to these types of outcomes.

I do hear that a lot... though I'm not sure what leads to the break down of "core family" as you put it..

hell what is core family?

@wirestyle22 said in Why have mass shootings increased - you thoughts?:

@Dashrender I personally think they cover the shooters themselves too much and to someone going through serious mental health issues it can be interpreted as glorifying what they did, even deifying them.

Funny, but I actually also kind of agree:

Agreed. the media has definitely caused some of the issue. Humans crave attention - deranged humans crave this specific attention...

I'm curious what people thing the reason is that mass shootings have supposedly increased?

I don't have any hard numbers to know that they really have - only that the media is making an bigger and bigger deal out of it it seems.

@Cagatay said in Remembering the MCSE+I, Microsoft's Terminal Certification:

Lol here is mine... does it still have value these days? or are we considered as dinasours?

Roar!

@JaredBusch said in How to find lost phone numbers?:

@Dashrender said in How to find lost phone numbers?:

where are the 100 number I've been paying for for years that are suddenly not showing up on my bill?

They probably haven't been paying for them. They just did not know it. That is the point.

we don't have the full information.

But let's assume they bought 100 numbers in the past and they were being billed for them - how and why did they just drop off the bill would be my next question.

@JaredBusch said in How to find lost phone numbers?:

@JasGot said in How to find lost phone numbers?:

I'll see if Skyetel can help since they are getting them.

You are porting and found these missing? Yeah, your incoming carrier is not going to be able to do more than look up who owns a number.

But they shouldn't tell you who that is.

They could tell who the carrier is... that shouldn't be any type of violation (that I can currently think of) but yeah - it doesn't help your new carrier in any way to tell you - so they will likely err on the side of caution.

Reach out to your old carrier and ask them what's up! where are the 100 number I've been paying for for years that are suddenly not showing up on my bill?

@xavierdelaraunt said in User Profile handling anno 2022:

@Obsolesce

Great and stream-lined!
I have quite a lot of settings I cannot get into the default settings in any way like that.

Because I don't know - what settings can you not apply to machines via intune? I assume you've tried and it simply won't work?

@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@gjacobse said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@RojoLoco
Ouch - the '06 Ridgeline is getting close... We've had it for seventeen years now and just under 280k miles.. things are starting to let go... sigh.. been a good truck.

My 2010 Honda Insight is still doing ok at 275,000, but I had some bad luck the last month shatter the driver’s mirror and then 3 weeks later a tire and wheel.

my 2011 prius at 180K is OK, but definitely needs new tires.

@JasGot I know a vendor like Skyetel can tell who owns a number -

I guess the thing to do is call their telco provider and ask where the numbers are? why they aren't on the bill anymore, etc.

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Today I was called communist for shopping at Walmart.

ROF - Damn...

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

lack of social interaction with peers - i.e. water cooler work.

Of course lack of #2 is good for the employer - should mean the employee is spending more time on the job...

That's awful for an employer. Employers don't make money by people not working nor from them "being at work". They make money from them working. Water cooler time isn't just bad, it's the absolute worst. Employees view it as "working" and the government views it as "working" and it carries all the costs of people working and all the risks and insurance problems... yet it has zero business value. Huge negative business value.

A smart employer wants the water cooler thing out the window more than almost anything. Water cooler time is loathed by productive employees who are there to work and it makes them disenchanted. It's mostly a tool to avoid work at the employer's expense.

Middle managers willing to sabotage their businesses for their own gains like water coolers because they make it easy to fool upper management that work is being done when really, everyone is lost and doesn't know what to do.

Did you miss where I said - "lack" of #2 is good for the employer?

Oh, must have, sorry. Yeah, lacking that is great.

While I completely understand where you're coming from for this - from an employee moral point of view - it's often a big factor.

Makes me wonder if the work day shouldn't be something more akin to 36ish working hours and 4 dedicated BS hours - at least that way everyone knows what's really happening.. but the reality is that some will always bend it more, not matter how much you give them.

@Obsolesce said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

Here's a real example.

I'm renting. I love the area we're in. There are other areas where we would enjoy living as well that are exactly the same.

I'm paying under $3K a month for rent. It's a large condo, 3BR 2Bath, wonderful area, 4 pools 4 hot tubs, awesome view, great location, great & quiet neighbors, great community.

Renting other places around here are similar priced, many are a few hundred $ more for now, but still in range.

We'd like to buy a house in our current area, or another area we like, and pretty much keep our current standard of living as we are in this condo, but in house form.

If we did that, the minimum mortgage payment we're looking at MINIMUM is $6.5K, that is with dumping a bunch of cash as a down payment... note that the $6.5K does not include insurance, PMI, taxes, closing costs, etc.

So you see, renting and owning a home is not the same thing. Just because I choose to rent, doesn't mean that I automatically will rent the same kind of house that I would want to buy. So it's just not logical to me to compare them like that. Typically, you rent to save money. Sure, I could rent a house for $8K a month, but wtf would I do that? I'd rather buy! Except, I don't want to buy, because I need the freedom to be mobile and choose where to live and not be stuck... I don't want to throw all my money into a house and live paycheck to paycheck and be forced to sell at the next higher bubble than is currently to make anything.

Yeah, we could move to a cheaper area, but we don't want to. There's no point because we just don't want to give up what makes us live happy and looking forward to the next day/weekend/time off, etc.

I'd rather keep renting, and saving money, and investing money, that I'm not throwing into a house that I may or may not get back plus more later, if life works out perfectly for home ownership. I'm very likely to move as well, need that freedom, while saving! We can't time our life according to the house, we need our housing to work for us.

What does your condo look like - more like a duplex or an apt building?

Condos have the advantage of shared resources, i.e. less land per unit so costs 'can' be lower compared to a single family home.

additionally - there is a huge value add to single family home compared to condo - so definitely not an apples to apples comparison.

What does a single family home rent for in that area?

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

There is value to actually living in the house - so at worse, to me - sounds like he broken even.

I believe that the downpayment was $35K in 1976. An index would have generator $1.55m in 2021 when he sold it.

Assuming 45 years of monthly rent of $1,500 (way, WAY above market for the entire time) that would have been just $810K, or about half of what the money would have cost.

In reality, in those early years rent of $400 would have been more accurate. And by the end, more like $1300. So really, actually renting on his street would like have cost around $450K - $500K over those 45 years.

So roughly, considering he "gained" around $100K on the house, and would have spent $600K... He only LOST about $800K... plus any additional improvements that he had to make over the years which I know were more than $300K.

So his total cost for ownership over renting was easily a loss of more than $1,000,000 USD.

Where are you getting rent of $1500 in 1976? Did he live in a mansion?

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

lack of social interaction with peers - i.e. water cooler work.

Of course lack of #2 is good for the employer - should mean the employee is spending more time on the job...

That's awful for an employer. Employers don't make money by people not working nor from them "being at work". They make money from them working. Water cooler time isn't just bad, it's the absolute worst. Employees view it as "working" and the government views it as "working" and it carries all the costs of people working and all the risks and insurance problems... yet it has zero business value. Huge negative business value.

A smart employer wants the water cooler thing out the window more than almost anything. Water cooler time is loathed by productive employees who are there to work and it makes them disenchanted. It's mostly a tool to avoid work at the employer's expense.

Middle managers willing to sabotage their businesses for their own gains like water coolers because they make it easy to fool upper management that work is being done when really, everyone is lost and doesn't know what to do.

Did you miss where I said - "lack" of #2 is good for the employer?

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@Dashrender said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

@scottalanmiller said in Is Real Estate Actually a Good Investment on Average?:

My dad is a great example, once I moved away, the pets were gone, and my mom had passed... the house that he bought when I was born and held for 40 years cost so much in taxes that he couldn't afford to live there, it made no sense (it was only a liability.) He didn't make money on the sale, even having held for 40 years, but it was necessary so that he could move to a small, appropriate, modern apartment where he could have someone else mow the grass, pay a small fraction in energy costs, and doesn't need the vehicle to go to the store.

His house didn't increase in value at all compared to when he moved in? or he continued to siphon the equity out while he lived there? It seems pretty unlikely - though not strictly impossible - that in 40 years the house value went up zero, unless the house was basically ready to be demo'ed because it was in such bad shape...

It, like average homes, did not gain value. That's the expectation of the housing market. Houses do not increase in value, period. That's fact. Not at the market level. So don't act surprised that it behaved at the average "expected" behaviour. It did exactly what houses normally do... it help to the inflation line almost exactly.

You say that the absolutely proven knowledge of real estate is "unlikely". Why? Why is everything known about the history of American real estate "unlikely" in the case of my dad's relatively average house? That makes no sense. What's your basis for expecting my dad's house to do something that the average house would not?

Alright - he didn't make money - but he did get a whole lot more than he paid for it - because inflation...

No, he got about HALF what he paid for it because of interest. Inflation must be assumed in "getting what you paid", because if you don't include inflation you cant' even make the assessment. The value in was the value out.

You expect a house to hold value (on average.) Cash just in a mattress loses value. If you put $100 in a mattress for 100 years, you lose money (generally). If you put $100 into a house for 100 years, you maintain your money (generally.)

Don't start thinking that $100 in 1900 and $100 today equals "not losing money", that leads to all financial thinking being wrong.

Yeah - I definitely get that.

though interest is the cost of actually living in the house, if that's all he lost over the life of the house, which I'm sure in 40 years wasn't the case (taxes, reno's, repairs, etc).

There is value to actually living in the house - so at worse, to me - sounds like he broken even. I'm guessing a typical bond would have done better - investment wise - but could he actually afford to do that in live somewhere, and if so - what do you guess his actual walk away cash in hand would be today had he done that instead of buying the house (mind you - he'd be paying rent somewhere else).