This tool does a nice job of factoring in all the financial aspects. Another aspect to consider is that homeowners have more autonomy if they want to renovate the property, but also have an additional time commitment to deal with repairs, taxes, HOA caterwauling, etc.
We literally just spoke with the bank about all the financial aspects for getting a home loan and have had this nagging feeling that we are doing something wrong and are two dumb kids getting into buying on an impulse. After looking at the rental market and the buying market, and inputting all of my exact numbers its not even close. Buying is the way to go for us.
Thanks for confirming that buying in my market was DEFINITELY the right thing to do. If we could find rent for 1/2 of our current mortgage (and 1/3 of median rent prices for similar square footage...which is literally impossible) than renting would make sense.
The biggest is that they have security. Unless you're renting and have somehow signed a 30 year lease, your property manager or owner of the property can choose to not renew your lease without more than a single month's notice.... That's a good way to kick someone onto the street! (Or just jack up their expenses by requiring them to pay a new security deposit and moving expenses every three to five years just so the property manager can "remodel"...
Edit: I feel it necessary to say that I was a maintenance man for an apartment management company in a metropolitan area. I can tell you that a company can choose not renew your lease with one month to your lease expiring. That is essentially getting kicked out with very little recourse. When your non-refundable deposit is half rent, and that goes out the door every few years, and God forbid you own an animal (even a cat) and that doubles your deposit... It's just garbage. And sure, I knew a few tenants that went over ten years in a single apartment, but the other camp was in the majority.
My fiance works for Axalta (the company which prvoided these numbers). And it should be noted that this includes all corporate or industrial vehicles. Meaning trucks, etc, which are overwhelmingly white or black. So not necessarily an accurate depiction of typical consumers.
Rental car/fleet sales I assume too. They buy whatever is cheapest, which is generally white/black/gray, as that's what the manufactured usually discounts.
Hi, car saleslady here. I recall hearing that neutral colors - white, black, silver, grey, and sometimes tan/beige - are more beneficial for resale and trade-in value later on down the road (no pun intended). Apparently this is due to less the "less offensive" nature of a neutral color as opposed to a vibrant one - not everyone is crazy about yellow or green.
Not sure if there is any science behind this, just something I've heard regularly in the industry. I can confirm I haven't sold many brightly colored vehicles, however.
I thought the cheapest was those ugly green colored ones, you generally see it with Fords.
I didn't know wind power was so dominant over solar power. That's awesome to see coal usage going down by a lot every year.
So gas is replacing coal. Awesome...I guess...it's some kind of progress...I mean it's change, at least...
Coal Usage in Power Plants Has Fallen by 21% Since 2014, While Wind and Solar Power Have Grown 24% During the Same Timespan in the U.S.
The implication being that the 24% rise in Solar and Wind has offset and is responsible for the 21% decline in coal. This same deceptive idea keeps being repeated time and time and time again in headlines and even in articles, and it's really starting to piss me off.
The article is just fine. It says exactly what I'm saying below. But this post has not made it to the front page on the merits of the article.
Coal is being displaced by Natural Gas. Wind and Solar are not displacing anything, because when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, backup natural gas plants kick in immediately to cover the lost load. The location for solar plants is chosen, not just for yearly solar irradiance, but for proximity to natural gas lines.
Looking at the damn graph in the article it tells the exact story. Hell, the green 'renewable's section doesn't even visibly expand. Because they're quoting capacity over energy production.
This is not Beautiful data. It's just a basic histogram chart. What it is, is a Deceptive headline.
Gas is much cleaner, and has a bit lower CO2 emissions per kWh. It is certainly not the best replacement, but it is an improvement.
I love the visualization, but after plodding around on the map with the different categories, I can't figure out where they set up Hamsterdam. Anyone on the ground in Philly that can shed some light on this?
I wonder what the crime rate would drop to if they ever close Paddy's Pub
I'm on the ground here. I have not looked at the statistics here, but I'll just say a headline like this should be backed with more explanation. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's not just Philadelphia that is experiencing less crime. Crime has lots of variables such as economic status, presence of authority, well-lit neighborhoods, strategic CCTV emplacements, etc. Despite the media's constant poor portrayal of police officers, policing has generally improved. So to shed some light... Yeah, crime has probably reduced here, but there's still someone getting shot here just about every day. If you compare Philadelphia to Iceland in terms of crime, you'd think this city is like a war zone.
Lived here 40 years. A lot of it has to do with the change in the city. This city had gigantic ghettos. I mean, solid 5 to 10 mile drive and be in the ghetto the entire time. Well, as is happening with other cities, young professionals are moving in and staying. So enormous ghettos are being removed a piece at a time. Our suburbs are getting much worse. It is more of a moving crime than limiting crime if you look at the entire metro area.
Author here, I actually did create an interactive page that lets you perform algebra here: https://trevor.shinyapps.io/subalgebra/
It will go down pretty quickly though after 100 views. If you have any suggestions I can run them and post the results here!
I love the last line:
If you take the subreddit for managing money and investing, /sub/personalfinance, and subtract the subreddit for frugality, /sub/frugal, the resulting most similar subreddit is /sub/wallstreetbets, a subreddit about taking extreme risks in the stock market.
Essentially, most of the people who post on /sub/the_donald also post on subreddits associated with hate, bigotry, racism, misogyny, etc. Can't say I'm surprised with the findings.
I really want to see this sort of analysis with a whole host of different subreddits, or on an interactive page where you could just compare them yourself.
I think I can see just vaguely make out Australia snugging neatly next to Vietnam and Egypt.
For any curious Canadians, we are chilling out just under the Philippines.
As per tradition, we're just happy to be included.
This has it all: circles, arranged into a circle, with no easy way to compare sizes, a color scheme that isn't colorblind friendly, no scale, and a completely arbitrary grouping of the third variable. There is no way this could be less informative from a data visualization perspective.
Russia is so much smaller than I would think. No wonder they are trying so hard to be heard.
Pizza Hut data isn't colored red.
Papa Johns data isn't colored green.
Domino's data isn't colored blue.
"If you can help it move to Mississippi"
I love pizza, but I don't know if I can subject myself to something like that.
Buy bigger pizza if you can afford it. Live in Mississipi if you can. Only pizza hut can help you if you really love crust.
No amount of pizza could convince me to move to Mississippi.
Ummm... I'm pretty sure Sol has 8 planets not 7. Or did they destroy Uranus?
OP's will be destroyed soon enough.
Born too late to explore the world. Born too early to explore the galaxy. Born just in time for dank memes.
Man i wanna be reborn just to witness the age of deep space exploration
Ooooohhh the white people are the grey whitespace at the bottom of every bar. I stared at this a while trying to figure out why there weren't any white people named Smith.
How do you define sleep quality?
That one night you slept 13 hours and only got ~40% sleep quality you were either sick as fuck or hungover.
First time posting here, woo!
But for the info you all, and the rules want!
Source: I use an app called Sleep Cycle, and have used it for the past 800 days. This graphic is made from 800 days worth of data that I exported from the app. There is more data, and I may post additional analysis/graphics on it but for now - here we go!
Tools: R, with ggplot2 for the graphic. 'lm' for the model.
The analysis of this shows a that time in bed is a significant predictor of sleep quality (F(1,798) = 2,111; p < 0.0001). There is also a high correlation amongst the two factors, but we should all remember that correlation does not equal causation. So is it that as I slept longer I slept better, or that I slept better therefore slept longer? Either way. Data! Woo!
I Googled the "Sleep Cycle" app. According to the "How it Works" page, you let the app run all night, and it performs signal analysis on the accelerometer to track your movement, (and on the microphone to track your breathing? I think?) and uses the signal to approximate how deeply you are sleeping, which you could call the "depth" of sleep.
Near as I can tell, sleep quality is defined a function of how similar your measured sleep depth graph is to an ideal sleep graph.
It kind of sucks, because it would really only work for single people living alone. If you sleep in a room with your partner, it couldn't gather this data.
EDIT: I guess it does work for couples sleeping together in bed.