Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Annoying New York Times articles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lucy Waterman
    replied
    There's loads of petty crime in London.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gangster Octopus
    replied
    Looking forward to the article based on London crimes...

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Douthat used to get a lot of mileage out of being a Professional Catholic.

    I wonder if he is re-considering his conversion.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    "Which is fair enough: The old ruling class was bigoted and exclusive and often cruel, it had failures aplenty"
    In marked contrast with today's Republican leadership...

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Oh, of course. FFS.

    I suppose the white ruling class of yore (which includes some non-protestants, I suppose.) was more pragmatic and technically competent, and perhaps less absolutist in their ideology, than the current GOP, but that's not saying a whole lot. It's gotten worse for a lot of reasons, but it's sure as hell not the fault of "meritocracy" or "diversity."

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    This is a good thread too
    https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1070318036261982208

    Leave a comment:


  • ad hoc
    replied
    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
    That really takes the fucking biscuit, doesn't it? Who wrote it?
    Does this help answer your question? Click the thread for more clues and even better vitriol
    https://twitter.com/JuliusGoat/status/1070306302956576768

    Edit: ahhh damn, I can't hide the previous tweet which tells you the answer

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied
    Very much so

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    That really takes the fucking biscuit, doesn't it? Who wrote it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • ursus arctos
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    This one ticks many of the boxes but the development it describes may actually be encouraging.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/s...orefronts.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Not in the NYT, but related to the kinds of tone-deaf bits they do.

    This piece takes down the trend of hotels (and apartments) that are insanely tiny, but only slightly cheaper than a human-sized space, but try to distract guests/renters with lots of "curated" bullshit.
    https://theoutline.com/post/5709/wel...=2&zi=jdcaz3wh

    I would argue that this is, to some extent, just the non plus ultra of a trend - perhaps a fact - of hotels and apartments everywhere, which is that it is damn near impossible to just buy what you want at a fair price. Last time I was in the apartment game in the DC area, all I wanted was four walls and a roof that didn't leak, a lock on the door, reliable plumbing and electricity, reasonable quiet, and no roaches. That simply isn't available. If you want those things, you also have to pay for a on site pool, on-site half-ass "gym," marble floors in the lobby, and various other services and amenities that no healthy person in their 30s needs or really wants. Of course, all of this is sold as "luxury," but it's not even that. It's just extraneous. But these places still turned out to be more affordable than any of the places that offered actual luxury, of course, or anywhere much closer to anywhere I wanted to be. People like me couldn't really afford to think in terms of cost per square foot. They can only think in terms of the total cost.*

    But this "curated" microhotel/microapartment bullshit is just taking that sad fact of life for so many people and trying to to turn it into some kind of bohemian hipster thing that people should pay top dollar for. It's the housing equivalent of a $350 plaid flannel shirt.

    The only apartments I've lived in where I felt like I wasn't getting ripped off were in places owned by individuals who were just trying to make a little hassle-free investment income while mostly hoping just to park their money in a property that will rise in value. Because they're the ones dealing with the tenants directly, its too their advantage to make that relationship as friendly as possible. But big developers and property managers are, apparently, more inclined to try to squeeze every dollar out of it and don't mind if there's a lot of turnover and frustration. They're underpaying staff to handle it all anyway, so it's no sweat off their back to make those people's jobs a bit harder by pissing-off the tenants.


    Anyway...

    This really takes the cake. People who make $155k telling other people their age how to be "frugal."

    https://theoutline.com/post/3840/fru...ty-millennials
    Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 05-12-2018, 14:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Bernardhinault
    replied
    This has been doing the rounds recently, to wide derision from everyone. But particularly scathingly from actual Angelenos. It's quite astonishing in all kinds of ways.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    If you get it in cash, you could buy somewhere down here, WOM.

    Yes cash. Property purchases in Argentina are paid for in suitcases of actual US dollars.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    I could certainly get into a reasonably salubrious mobile-home park in Ft Myers with my half. Which would suit me just fine.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by WOM View Post
    You should mind your business until roughly the end of April, when hopefully mom's house is sold.
    Will you be able to retire to the Carribean on the profit?

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
    That should be illegal.
    You should mind your business until roughly the end of April, when hopefully mom's house is sold.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ginger Yellow
    replied
    My experience in the US compared with the UK was that the people in the US who did building inspections and so in didn't seem to have any legal liability, gave vague sort of reports if anything, and the whole show was very superficial. The UK surveyor handed me an 80 page report full of all kinds of thing, covering their arses on the tiniest risks of maybe a hint of decay in a joist somewhere, or whatever. I think UK surveyors can be in big financial trouble from mortgage lenders if they fail to spot problems that damage the value of the house. Our US inspection was - I think - voluntary, not needed by the mortgage company at all.
    Yeah, in principle the surveyors/valuers (in practice it's the same person/firm) are directly liable for any loss which is the result of a negligent report. In practice it can be difficult to establish that, but there's a formal duty of care in that relationship. Sounds like there isn't in the US.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View Post
    My experience in the US compared with the UK was that the people in the US who did building inspections and so in didn't seem to have any legal liability, gave vague sort of reports if anything, and the whole show was very superficial. The UK surveyor handed me an 80 page report full of all kinds of thing, covering their arses on the tiniest risks of maybe a hint of decay in a joist somewhere, or whatever. I think UK surveyors can be in big financial trouble from mortgage lenders if they fail to spot problems that damage the value of the house. Our US inspection was - I think - voluntary, not needed by the mortgage company at all.
    It's often required for the mortgage. I don't see how, in the situation WOM describes, the banks aren't just begging for a disaster if they hold mortgages on so many houses they know nothing about. Because they're going to end up owning a certain percentage of them, and as prices go through into orbit, that percentage is likely to grow, isn't it? Or maybe they think that prices will go up forever. We saw how that turned out.


    In every US state I'm familiar with, the seller is legally obligated to disclose certain things, like if the house ever had termites.
    After the inspection, you can try to chisel the seller down a bit, get them to agree to pay for certain repairs, or agree to split the costs of certain things that need to happen. Like with this house, I got the seller to help pay for the radon thing and fix the drain in the downstairs bathtub, which still is kinda not fixed. I think it's just inherently too narrow or something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by WOM View Post
    In multiple-offer Toronto of last summer, you'd get 10 or 12 people bidding on a house - with all conditions waived. So, nothing conditional upon financing, inspection, etc. Apparently these would immediately put you out of the running.
    That should be illegal.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Bernardhinault
    replied
    My experience in the US compared with the UK was that the people in the US who did building inspections and so in didn't seem to have any legal liability, gave vague sort of reports if anything, and the whole show was very superficial. The UK surveyor handed me an 80 page report full of all kinds of thing, covering their arses on the tiniest risks of maybe a hint of decay in a joist somewhere, or whatever. I think UK surveyors can be in big financial trouble from mortgage lenders if they fail to spot problems that damage the value of the house. Our US inspection was - I think - voluntary, not needed by the mortgage company at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • WOM
    replied
    In multiple-offer Toronto of last summer, you'd get 10 or 12 people bidding on a house - with all conditions waived. So, nothing conditional upon financing, inspection, etc. Apparently these would immediately put you out of the running.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
    Yeah, the "Maker Academy" raises the possibility that he was previously a tech bro or banker who wasn't making a teacher's salary.

    It does look like they didn't do a structural inspection, which isn't unheard of here, but is pretty stupid given the nature of the housing stock (visual inspections/walk throughs are generally required for mortgages)
    My inspection determined I needed radon mitigation (which I still believe may be some kind of elaborate scam), and a few other minor things. But it was built in 1994.

    A regular inspection might not turn-up structural issues, but for that amount of money and that house, they should have hired one.

    On the other hand, it sounds like they would have bought it anyway or some other dumbass would have at that price.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hot Pepsi
    replied
    Originally posted by SouthdownRebel View Post
    Underrated. Great physical comedy.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X