|
Cultural Imperial posted:PDE for sure. Definitely analysis. Anything where you see a ton of loving 'i's. Maybe discrete math. Logic beyond what they take for philosophy. I found discrete 2 difficult compared to other 2nd year math courses, computability/complexity theory was mind-boggling but I got through it.
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:How would that work? twisty logic and bad graphs
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I guess that's true. I can't fathom it myself, as I really enjoy cooking (and eating) fairly-elaborate meals, but I'm probably in the minority at this point. Nah I'm with you here dude; when I was apartment hunting 4 years back the first thing I looked at was the kitchen. oven/stove suck? Not enough counter space? lovely small fridge? No drat thanks. Second thing was bedroom space, so these new tiny spaces are anathema to me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:It does depend if you're living with a partner. I know the simple fact of having enough room to enter and exit the bed on both sides of it, and each side having a bedside table/drawer is a nice plus for a couple on a queen size bed. When I lived by myself though, I definitely just wanted a tiny cubby hole with space for a closet and drawers. Thats essentially what I live in now till I move in with the gf in September. Pretty much this. Also I keep my bookshelves in the bedroom.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
When I think 'middle-class' I don't tend to think 'wears $400 pairs of pants'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:This is loving awesome. that looks like SFU Burnaby
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
I would not want to live there, it looks like a nightmare to navigate, but maybe the inside is actually simple and straightforward?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Does anyone have a good idea of what will happen once this housing bubble pops or deflates or whatever? Are we going right into a recession a la the States? derivative industries are going to go out of business, people's retarded 'retirement plans' will be gone overnight forcing them to keep working, restricting the job market. Consumer spending will go down which will impact employment and earnings in consumer sectors (restaurants, retail, etc), corporations might get spooked and try to cut costs by hiring less and laying people off. Other bad poo poo. Any way you look there's pain in the future, especially for folks who don't have guaranteed employment or many job options as it is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Even if housing stays at a permanently high plateau - it strikes me as an awful lot of the economy dedicated to debt repayment as opposed to actual wealth creation or hell, consumption that drives other incomes. I forgot about that, not sure how I could though. That so much of the economy is driven by cheap credit elevates the 'shits gonna be bad' outlook from probable to terrifyingly certain. A whole bunch of people who largely don't deserve to are going to suffer come the end of this nonsense 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
that's good advice for those privileged enough to have post-secondary education and presumably not be crushed by debt from that, but is not so terribly useful to, say, the working poor who don't, can't, and possibly have no thoughts of owning a house and yet are still going to be thoroughly hosed by any kind of economic collapse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:If you guys value your current life styles so much, then my advice will be worthless. you haven't answered my question from earlier really. What about those who are too poor to simply up and move? What about people toeing the poverty line? You have the tendency, occasionally, to post that you cannot wait for the crash to come - namely because you want those responsible (largely for engaging in behaviour that encourages this kind of situation) to suffer. Do you feel any empathy for those who will suffer despite not being responsible? Because you come across and crassly removed from any such thoughts.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Not knowing anything else about it, what kind of qualifications/previous merit does she possess that offsets her being a corrupt scumbag? Do you have some information that points to her being a corrupt scumbag? Do you think she's lying about her ex-husband misleading her about how the vacations were being paid for? Because the article at least says that she's repaid the expenses herself, despite not knowing about them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:Holy gently caress: uh: http://skeena.en.craigslist.ca/apa/4405644540.html
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
brucio posted:Wait, how can you have 48% office and 74% service? I was wondering this - I think it's another geographical stat rather than an employment stat (like, 48% of the jobs in toronto are in an area of office buildings?) but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm not really a financial guy, but isn't income income? Doesn't matter if it's my boss giving me a wage, my mom giving me 5,000 for looking after the house for a month, or a long forgotten uncle leaving me a massive bag of cash with a dollar sign on the side? It's all "me getting money", it's incoming money, income. presumably labor and some kind of contract but I'm not a finance guy either, and I agree with you besides.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
Rime posted:CP to reactivate arbutus freight line. I was kind of hoping to get a community garden in along a totally barren stretch of that near 16th ave, like they have along 6th near Cypress, ah well.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
might as well sell it with children
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Rime posted:Those incentives currently exist, and have resulted in homeowners building 250sqft favelas that they then try to rent for $2000+ a month. Yeah, density needs to be increased - and as far as I know there's been major push-back from homeowners at the very idea of lane-way housing as somehow devaluing properties, never-mind any kind of regulations forcing the building of such properties.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:
hahah I predict (more of) a return to feudalism first
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
uh we have mountains and have you seen how great the housing marke-- wait, poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
why bother putting it like that then? Toeing the line?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Serious question: how do we fix this poo poo in the least painful way? How do we deflate the bubble without totally destroying the economy and completing screwing over a vast majority of "home owners" ? Or at least how do we do it in the way that will have the least overall negative effects on society, and then how do we keep it from happening again? introduce restrictions on lending, increase wages to ease reliance on credit, expand social safety-nets for those who cannot survive as is and would be inordinately harmed by an economic collapse, some other stuff a more educated person could no doubt include as well
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
there will be many more people who suffer and are destroyed by the greed of others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
ultimatums and judgement: the height of friendship
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
The one thing I think a housing crash might do is cause social programs to be enhanced and a renewed interest in such. Or it will result in austerity measures because gently caress the poor and all those lazy people buying too much house.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
"Just wait, you'll see!" is not a very compelling argument
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Mexplosivo posted:Can you help me out here please? if the banks are doing anything like those in the US were leading up to 2008 they are repackaging those as investments and selling them en-mass to large financial entities like hedge funds and pensions and such.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Presumably this poo poo is 'insured' with CDSs. What happens when that sweet sweet tranche of poo poo-assed mortgages goes to hell? well if AIG is anything to go by, 2008 happens
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Rime posted:Holy hell. If they put the taxpayer on the hook like that again for this next round, I hope we guillotine some fuckers. it's a social program. These are good things for government to endorse, period. In this case they were helping idiots that probably should have had the money (and sense) to fix the problem themselves, but it's a social program none-the-less.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Rime posted:I see no reason to subsidize corner cutting developers, and bail out buyers too stupid to be trusted with large sums of money, in a province with the highest child poverty rates in the country (among all our other incredibly ill-funded social issues). I agree that this could encourage future corner-cutting in developers which is lamentable. However, allowing homeowners to keep owning a home rather than be drowned under debt is hardly deplorable behavior, even if there are more pressing issues that both you and I would rather see the money go towards. Creating more homelessness and debt issues would hardly help the latter in any event.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
The reason I don't see this as a terrible attempt at a social program is that the government ought not to be in the business of making money off of the misery of their citizens, and it's a little disturbing how the problem some of you seem to have wasn't necessarily the loans themselves, but that they're interest-free. Presumably there are still conditions on paying back those loans, which there should be, but as a social assistance program the government at worst loses some money due to inflation - how much more would stand to be lost in the case of massive foreclosures and the resulting fallout? As for the buyers, I don't really see the point of emphasizing that every single one of them is an idiot - even if they are taking on debt to own the issue is that this was, by and large, a problem many of them could reasonably not expect to encounter - unless you have proof that a vast amount of them were not getting inspections, or ignoring the results of them? And helping this or that group does not necessarily impact the governments ability to help others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:It sure seems that way. I'd cover my rear end this way also (remembering, of course, that the central purpose of any organization, however altruistic, is to perpetuate its own existence indefinitely). It's not really damaging to this statement, but this is somewhat hampered by the (relatively) recent concept of people high up in the executive chain being far more interested in their own personal gains than the company they might not be working for in 5 years.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
because largely the discourse about ownership vs. renting breaks down to an ephemeral 'but then you own where you live' when it's pointed out that renting is largely cheaper, and that the concept of 'losing' the money you pay for rent is nonsense
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I kind of still read this thread because I kind of share the view that house prices will probably fall, but most of the posts here are some variant of "the only moral privatized profit/socialized cost is MY privatized profit/socialized cost" or "look at how some Chinese people are dumb assholes, the country should only allow in whites who have never been dumb or assholes ever.". This thread has pretty much convinced me to never go to Vancouver, ever, much less live there, regardless of how much houses cost. cool, means I'll never run the risk of running into you here, idiot
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:1) You cannot be kicked out on your landlord's whim. luckily this isn't the case when you're renting either! quote:2) You can redecorate and renovate as you please. quote:3) You don't have to consider the possibility of a rent increase occurring every year. quote:4) You can do what you want in your own dwelling, including "owning pets" and "smoking." quote:5) You have greater privacy rights. I get the impression your 25 year old self has never rented. But I also think you're a dunce most of the time, so don't worry too much about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Aren't rental properties in calgary suffering from such a crunch right now due to the floods? Or is the lack of rental property a long-lived problem there?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
If you cannot hack it in loving Victoria I wouldn't try to head to any other city (because you are deeply incapable of dealing with others)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:It's an excellent city to just sort of chill in, maybe get an education, maybe retire. If you have any aspirations or need for work you'll have to move on though. But if you find an ok little gig that pays the bills it's a pretty ok place. that's true. The few friends I have that still live there are holding on despite not being able to do anything in their career path because they just love it there so much. There's a lot to love though, I get out to the Island as much as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
THC posted:I just paid off my student loan which brings me to a staggering zero percent now you just need to finish  nice work man
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 18:03 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:holy poo poo yeah I'm around 8k/year out here in BC (and that's with some summer courses). Wanna get done as fast as you can because they keep hiking credit hour costs each year!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2014 01:14
|
|