once the terms of the lease expire

I feel like this is the main point of contention. No, you’re left with no new physical assets after spending that $1. But why is that a problem? Not everything is about physical possessions. If you purchase a meal and eat it, you’re left with nothing at the end of the meal. If you pay someone to move an old couch out of your home, then you’re left with nothing after they’re done. If you pay a taxi to drive you home, you’ve again gained nothing physical at the end of the transaction. But in all these cases, you’ve gained something, or else you wouldn’t spend your money there.

When you pay a landlord for shelter, you’ve exchanged some sum of money so that you’re protected from the elements and live to see the next day. Similar to buying a meal and eating it.

Right, because the system is broken.

Exactly. So what’s not to understand? A broken system means problems exist, and you can do things to compensate for those problems. Things that provide value to others. Now, we can go into what it means to “need” something and whether we ever actually “need” anything, but that’s a whole other discussion and not the one we’re here to have. In this context, “someone needs to do X” means that doing X provides value to someone else.

It’s basically co-ownership, which is already an established way to buy and own a property.

Co-ownership refers to the ownership structure, doesn’t it? I’m talking about the threshold you proposed for the landlord-tenant relationship to not be parasitic.

the landlord ends up with more than they started with (equity in a property + profit from rent) and the renter ends up with less than they started with (lost money in rent payments).

And I’m saying it doesn’t have to be that way. Do we at least agree that if the landlords sets the rent at $1/month, then the transaction will be to the benefit of the tenant? And if you set it to market rates, then it benefits the landlord. There exists some middle ground between $1/month and market rates where it’s a net neutral.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. No one needs to rent anything to anyone, if resources are distributed fairly.

But resources aren’t being distributed fairly.

If a renter pays the same amount of money as the landlord pays towards their mortgage, and the renter has paid rent for as long as the landlord has paid the mortgage, the renter should have as much equity in the property as the landlord does.

That’s a rather arbitrary rule. You would still need a bunch of stipulations on top of that to make sure it’s fair to the renter.

Assuming you do have all the right rules in place, what makes this setup more desirable than simply renting at cost?

Just so we’re on the same page, we’re still talking about OP’s question, right? My definition of parasitic requires being a net negative to the “host”. The threshold between parasitic and non-parasitic is at net neutral for both parties, and we’re discussing where that line is.

People who don’t want to buy a home at that location would still need a place to live. Someone needs to rent it to them. Until someone comes along to create government housing or whatever, this is the best we can offer as an individual.

On the topic of transferring equity, how much is reasonable equity? Why not rent at cost instead of charging more and giving it back in a different form?

I don’t know the other names, but I’ve listened to Mearsheimer speak on the issue and it all sounds very logical given the premise. Recalling from memory, the premise was something along the lines of NATO neighbors being an existential threat to the country. I’m not well versed in geopolitics, so I’m wondering if anyone has any arguments for or against this? All I have to work with is that this looks consistent with Russia’s invasion of Georgia/Ukraine and how China continues to prop up North Korea.

This suffocated the turtle

I think the words you’re looking for is “sisyphean”.

This is probably why dentists recommend replacing them frequently.

To be fair, the same can be said about most forms of entertainment.

You don’t even need any indoctrination. Just compensate them better than everyone else and they’ll give their life for you. That’s the power of money.

My workouts are organized such that on any day, the order of the exercises is also their importance. So if there’s ever a need to cut things short, I still do the same workout but I’ll cut it short somewhere in the middle.

If I know what I’m losing a whole workout somewhere, then there’s one of two things I can do. If my body is well recovered, then on the last workout before the break, I’ll bring the intensity way up with lots of myo-reps and drop sets and increase the number of sets. If I’m in need of recovery, then I don’t do anything special and just treat those days as a deload.

The question you should be asking is what you’re trying to achieve with each element of your workout and how important it is for you. For example, what do you get out of stair climbing that you don’t from running-walking or stretching? If there isn’t anything specific, it may well be that it doesn’t matter what you do as long as you do something. Consider also what your body might need recovery from. For example, does running hurt your joints? If so, then maybe use that opportunity to take a break from it.

I don’t understand why you would. It’s extra work to burn a bridge. And what do you gain? Nothing. You just put in effort to lose a bridge.

People happy with their jobs don’t go job hunting or interviewing. […] Why pretend everything’s sweet and dandy at the current workplace? It’s ridiculous.

I’ve left multiple jobs mostly because I was bored with the work. I’m usually pretty vocal about it, and every manager I’ve had have been very understanding, some even putting in extra effort to help me find something more interesting within the company. There’s no need to pretend that everything is fine, nor is there any need to throw a tantrum.

Why do we do drugs at all if it isn’t to reduce our suffering on this planet?

muh gainz!

Don is special. Don’t question it.

Depends on what you mean by “free speech”. If you mean absolute free speech in the sense that all voices are present and heard, then no, because it blocks out the hateful voices. But you can’t have that while allowing for hate speech either because hate speech silences the voices of its target. So no such thing can exist. If you want a platform with “free speech”, you need to decide who gets the freedom and how much of it. There has to be a limit somewhere, whether it’s explicitly set or not.

This sounds like a good way to keep track of time.

Snow is simultaneously a particle and a wave. What you’re seeing is the destructive interference resulting from its wave-like behaviour.

I would say that the pain and follow-up soreness from working hard at the gym feels amazing in a non-sexual way.

This isn’t without its own problems. If you fail to renew your domain and someone else picks it up, they now have access to all your accounts. At least with a popular provider like Gmail, they don’t allow emails to be reused, and if they ever discontinue email services and drop the gmail.com domain, everyone will know about it and know that password reset requests should not be sent to these emails.