That’s not part of this comparison. The comparison in this article and the metric it covers is for people who are renting versus buying in 2024. The renter in 2024 can rent from a landlord who purchased in 2010, and is borrowing at 2020 interest rates. But a buyer today is buying at 2024 prices and 2024 interest rates.

Two things: first, landlords aren’t entitled to a profit, and second, landlord input costs might be completely different from an owner resident.

On the first point, if the landlord’s costs are $2000/month, and the market rent for that unit is $1900/month, the landlord would rather lose $100/month on a lease than lose $2000/month on a vacant property.

On the second, it might be that the landlord bought the place when it was much cheaper, or has a much lower interest rate than what is available today. So if the landlord’s costs are $2000/month for a property that would now cost $4000/month at today’s purchase prices and interest rates, but can rent for $3000/month at a profit to himself.

Similarly, some volume landlords can spread certain costs around and not pay nearly as much as an owner resident. It might cost $1200 to hire a plumber to do a 6-hour job, but it also might cost $150 to simply have a plumber on the payroll to do that job, if you’ve got enough steady work that it’s cheaper to have him around.

Sheng Wang had short hair when he first got into the standup game:

https://youtu.be/Qvo9stCkbyA

Both Jimmy O. Yang and Sheng Wang are hilarious, but you should recognize that they are two different people.

Author of The Six Habits

Is this lady the hitchhiker from There’s Something About Mary, copying Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People?

Hitchhiker : You heard of this thing, the 8-Minute Abs?

Ted : Yeah, sure, 8-Minute Abs. Yeah, the exercise video.

Hitchhiker : Yeah, this is going to blow that right out of the water. Listen to this: 7… Minute… Abs.

Ted : Right. Yes. OK, all right. I see where you’re going.

Hitchhiker : Think about it. You walk into a video store, you see 8-Minute Abs sittin’ there, there’s 7-Minute Abs right beside it. Which one are you gonna pick, man?

Ted : I would go for the 7.

Hitchhiker : Bingo, man, bingo. 7-Minute Abs. And we guarantee just as good a workout as the 8-minute folk.

Ted : You guarantee it? That’s - how do you do that?

Hitchhiker : If you’re not happy with the first 7 minutes, we’re gonna send you the extra minute free. You see? That’s it. That’s our motto. That’s where we’re comin’ from. That’s from “A” to “B”.

Ted : That’s right. That’s - that’s good. That’s good. Unless, of course, somebody comes up with 6-Minute Abs. Then you’re in trouble, huh?

[Hitchhiker convulses]

Hitchhiker : No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody’s comin’ up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won’t even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.

Ted : That - good point.

Hitchhiker : 7’s the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that’s the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin’ on a branch, eatin’ lots of sunflowers on my uncle’s ranch. You know that old children’s tale from the sea. It’s like you’re dreamin’ about Gorgonzola cheese when it’s clearly Brie time, baby.

a bike which is fueled by snacks and doesn’t even shit!

Well the actual motor that powers the bicycle does shit, though.

The true key is…counterintuitive as this sounds, not looking.

I agree with your overall comment but would also expand on this point. It’s ok to be looking (and open about that fact) but you’re right that looking for a romantic/sexual relationship is a lot easier when it’s combined with looking for other things at the same time, like the other things you’re talking about: people to share conversations with, to share hobbies with, to do things with, to learn from, to accomplish things with. Because after all, even if you do find someone to be a romantic partner, you’ll want all those other things as part of it, too.

Most people who share your interests or want to do things with you won’t be potential partners. I’m a straight cis guy with a lot of stereotypical straight guy interests, which means that the majority of people I meet through my hobbies are other straight guys, and none of us want to date each other. Even most of the women aren’t in the dating pool (age, relationship status, other factors).

Being social creates opportunities to meet partners. For people who are able to do that, being social is the easiest way to create the environment where potential partners want to talk to you and want to explore compatibility with you.

Which room though?

recipes are basically an engineering text

I would love to see more systematic recipe formats.

Around 15-20 years ago there was a website called “Cooking for Engineers” that used a table format for recipes that was pretty clever, and a very useful diagram for how to visualize the steps (at least for someone like me). I don’t think he ever updated the site to be mobile friendly but you can see it here:

Cheesecake
Dirty Rice

He describes the recipe in a descriptive way, but down at the bottom it lists ingredients and how they go together in a chart that shows what amounts to use, what ingredients go into a particular step, what that step is, and how the product of that step feeds into the next step.

You’re thinking of indigo.

Red

Orange

Yellow

Green

Blue

Violet

That’s 6.

The law falls back to a bunch of hidden rules if the language isn’t explicit.

“No vehicles in the park” is a simple rule, but then poses problems when you have to ask whether that includes baby strollers, regular bicycles, or electric assist bicycles, whether there’s an exception for ambulances in an emergency, etc.

Somewhat famously, there was a case a decade or so ago where someone was prosecuted under Sarbanes Oxley’s obstruction of justice provisions, passed to criminalize Enron-like accounting coverups. The guy was convicted for tossing undersized fish overboard to avoid prosecution for violating fish and wildlife rules. The statute made it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence” a federal investigation. So the Supreme Court had to figure out whether a fish is a “tangible object” in the meaning of the law, when it is clearly a “tangible object” within the normal meaning of the term, but not the type of object that stores records, as everything else described in the criminal statute.

So that just means, in the end, simplicity of language can betray complexity of meaning underneath. Lawyers tend to prefer to make things clear up front so that there’s no uncertainty later on, and that just leads to unreasonably complicated language.

But imagine describing an area in meter•feet instead of square feet or square meters. That could really piss everyone off.

You don’t need an extra document to define each term as it is expected that others in the field will understand the language used.

For lawyers, it’s the opposite, actually. Lawyers are overly cautious and choose to explicitly define terms themselves, all the time. If they can reference a definition already in a specific law, great. But they’ll go ahead and explicitly make that link, instead of relying on the reader to assume they know which law to look up.

So any serious contract tends to use pages and pages of definitions at the beginning.

Imagine programmers being reluctant to use other people’s libraries, but using the same function and variable names with slightly different actual meanings/purposes depending on the program. That’s what legal drafting is like.

Probably. But it’s also a bit of a difficult question to compare the two.

One prominent estimate is that about half of all humans who have ever lived died from mosquito-related illness, about 50 billion of the 100 billion humans who have ever lived.

For humans, it’s estimated that about 3-4% of paleolithic humans died from violence at the hands of another person, and that number may have risen to about 12% during medieval history, before plummetting in the modern age.

But that’s the comparison of direct violence versus illness. Humans have a strong capacity to indirectly cause death, including by starvation, illness, indirect trauma. How do we count deaths from being intentionally starved as part of a siege? Or biological weapons, including the time the Nazis intentionally flooded Italian marshes to increase malaria? Do we double count those as both human and mosquito deaths?

And then there’s unintentional deaths, caused by indifference or recklessness or negligence. Humans have caused famines, floods, fires, etc.

So yeah, mosquitoes probably win. But don’t sleep on humans. And remember that the count is still going on, and humans can theoretically take the lead in the future.

Ok but mosquitoes historically are the #1 killers of humans, by an order of magnitude

Homo sapien: am I a joke to you?

You’re comparing animals with fat throughout the muscle to birds that don’t.

No, I’m comparing the same species of animal. We’ve gone from 100+ day old birds weighing 2.5 lbs to 47 day old birds weighing 6.5 lbs in the last century. That seems comparable to the difference between old roosters for coq au vin or old dairy cattle for vaca vieja and their respective supermarket counterparts.

Also, the connective tissue only starts to break down once getting to about 192f and needs to hang out for a good while between there and 210 to slowly break down.

No, collagen starts to break down slowly as low as 130°F, but the breakdown speeds up as the temperature rises. There are ways to play around with this with different techniques, where doneness is more than just getting the meat to temperature. It’s why poaching chicken used to be more common than it is today. It’s why chicken wings taste best when double fried. It’s why confit works so well for duck legs.

Also, steak was best 200 years ago as it is now.

Ok, again, if you’ve ever had to work through cooking something like vaca vieja, you’ll notice that it doesn’t cook the same way as a steak that’s been dry aged, or a regular steak at Costco, or a lean grass-fed steak. If your steak technique is the exact same for all of them, you’re probably missing out.

And I’m guessing the NY Times wasn’t exactly building this conclusion based on only steak recipes. 150 years is gonna have a lot of non-steak recipes in the mix.

Methods changed because we got better at cooking.

That’s part of it. But also, trends come and go. I’d rather have a 1950s cheeseburger than a 1990s cheeseburger, and much of the post 2010 scene has been re-implementing some old techniques that fell out of favor (smashing patties, simpler bread for buns, fewer toppings) and a backlash at some of those things that got out of control. Cocktails went through something similar too, with old classics coming back (either as is or with a new variation).

I’m sure any comprehensive catalog of recipes over decades is going to include some fads that fizzled out, like low fat stuff in the 90’s, etc. It’s not some kind of inexorable march of progress.

I’m betting chicken always could have cooked faster.

Chicken can be cooked to temperature quickly, but that alone likely wasn’t enough. We know this for plenty of cuts of pork and beef that the connective tissue needs time to break down, not just a pure cook to temperature (see braising, smoking, and sous vide techniques).

Something like coq au vin, which was developed for cooking older, tougher roosters, traditionally calls for a low and slow cook to break down the tougher animal.

You can also see the difference when buying cuts like vaca vieja (old dairy cattle slaughtered for meat), which calls for different preparation based on the tougher meat.

So no, I can believe the meat itself is very different today, and the recipes adjusted to the change in ingredient characteristics. We’ve documented that the manner of raising animals is totally different, so why would you be skeptical that the meat is different?

Same but also because I haven’t felt the desire to get taco bell without having been drinking first.

Interesting that egg sizing labels aren’t that universal. In the U.S. most big stores primarily stock Large (minimum weight 56.7g) and Extra Large (63.8g), while Jumbo (70.9g) is still probably more common than Medium (49.6g).

(My methodology for getting weights was that I used the government labeling requirements for minimum weight per dozen, converted ounces to grams, divided by 12).

We shall name it of course after our beloved queen.

Yes, of course. Sorry.

Let it pass and hail to this glorious land, Virginia!

Er…What? Who’s Virginia?

The Queen of England, you dog!

Oh, right. Except…I don’t know how to put this. She’s not called Virginia, but Elizabeth.

I’m well aware of that, but she is, I trust you will agree, a virgin.

Er… Yeah, as far as I know. I mean, I’m sure she is.

But do we want to name a country after that fact?

Source