Producing value gives leverage. A salesman who brings in lots of revenue and profit can negotiate a pretty high commission, because controlling that level of revenue/profit represents some leverage.

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.

You keep calling it a “die off” because you’re being visually tricked by the misleading population pyramid. Use the actuarial tables instead.

Among 65 year old men, the probability of surviving to 75 is 76%. The probability of surviving to 85 is 39%. The probability of surviving to 95 is 5.9%.

For women, the odds are 84%, 52%, and 12% of getting to 75/85/95, respectively.

Yes, these are higher death rates than at younger ages. But nowhere near what the shape of the population pyramid suggests, where the 85 age cohort is about 1/4 as large as the 65, which misleadingly suggests a probability of 25% of living 20 more years, when the real number is closer to 45%.

That’s the baby boom moving up the chart.

Yes, exactly my point. The boomer generation itself made the population pyramid look different at every stage of its life, which is why the 1980 chart looks so different from the 2023 chart. When you introduce a cohort that has its own slope from birth statistics, the shape of the drop off at 60 is confounded by the preexisting shape of the slope before they entered old age.

So the appropriate method of isolating the variable that shows what you call a “die off” would be to just pull up the actuarial tables that show what percentage of 60, 61, 62 year olds, etc., die that year. Not to compare how many of those there are as a percent of overall population.

You don’t think that 1980 chart has a very different shape? The current chart is almost flat from 20-60, while the 1980 chart is actually pyramid shaped, with the steepness is only slightly sharper past 60. And matches the steepness of the range from 25-50. Nobody talks about a 25-year-old die off.

You’re better off charting the actuarial tables to convey the data you’re trying to talk about (death rates), rather than relying on a stat that is influenced by birth rates and death rates in an opaque way.

That population pyramid is a bit misleading because the baby boom coincides with the ages with the steepest declines. In part, there were significantly fewer people born in 1939 compared to 1959, so you’d expect way more 65 year olds than 85 year olds in 2024.

Yes, the death rate is higher among older people, but the life expectancy of a 60 year old man is still another 20 years.

Mountain Dew was originally invented as a moonshine mixer, so that’s just returning to its roots.

italics

Is this a slur for Italian people?

This reminds me of the boy who cried wolf. Eventually the boy cries wolf too many times, townspeople stop listening to the boy, and stop responding to the cries.

The way we tell it, though, is that the boy is falsely crying wolf each time. And the townspeople eventually learn their lesson and stop responding.

One hypothetical that I always think about is what if the boy is correct each time, and there really is a wolf every time? Well, I think the townspeople would eventually grow numb to the cries and stop responding anyway, and kinda leave the boy to fend for himself because they’re sick of helping him. We’d see the same result even if the boy did nothing wrong.

James Cameron has a history of making great things happen with a low budget, and spending millions responsibly to actually make a positive difference in big budget films.

is a “B-movie” now?

Did you not read the article? It was regarded as a B-movie when it came out: a low-budget sci-fi slasher/horror film. Arnold referred to it as a B-movie when asked about it on the set of Conan the Barbarian (which had 3 times the budget as Terminator). The New York Times referred to it as a B-movie in its review, as discussed by this article, which is also why the headline uses quotes around “B-movie.”

“I got into barefoot running but mainly for the savings”

Same with asparagus.

I told the magic mirror a thousand times, I never wanted to meet a girl in person! I just wanted a corpse. You can’t disappoint a corpse! I hate you magic mirror!

Counterpoint: showing the sex and the puking in graphic detail in Team America were both important parts of the movie.

Yeah, I understand the article to be saying that the Hitachi contract is for the train control system, including the software and equipment necessary for the operation of the train underground. The broader system upgrades include communications systems between trains and stations. At least how I read it.

No, the $212 million includes the entire upgrade (and 20 years of support) of the automatic train control system. The full $700 million plus is for the overall modernization of multiple systems.

Yeah I wash my vegetables for grit. I don’t even care that much about bugs, but even the slightest amount of grit is terrible.

pulled right from the fuckin court documents

The “court documents” are filings by the parties. You’re summarizing litigation documents filed by Twitter, in a motion to dismiss, which is a phase of litigation before either side comes forward with any evidence.

The court hasn’t ruled on anything, so you’re just repeating statements that one side has claimed. I’m pointing out that the other side is claiming the opposite.

The suing company isn’t going off anything but fucking assumptions.

They’re not required to come forward with evidence (and litigation procedure doesn’t even give them much of an opportunity to come forward with evidence at this stage). What they have come forward with is literally sealed by the court, so unless you’re leaking confidential court documents you don’t have any idea of what they’re claiming. Take a look at the docket.

If you’re going to be aggressive in this comment section, at least learn the very basics of the thing you’re being aggressive about. It’s clear you don’t know the basics of this type of litigation, so it might help if you show some intellectual humility, take a step back, and let the knowledgeable people actually weigh in, to be able to evaluate the publicly filed documents in an informed way. Whatever it is you’re doing instead, looks pretty bad.

There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order they are claiming is all custom made and cant be recouped, “the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries.”

You’re leaving out that the paragraph you’re summarizing starts off with “X claims that.”

One side says there was a contract. The other side says it wasn’t firmed up yet into a binding contract. Neither side has come forward with their evidence.

Also, Wiwynn is also suing for negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel, which don’t require a contract.