HelixDab2

In Illinois you didn't have to 'register' for section 8 (I believe it was called 'housing choice'), but it's been a long time ago. (I owned a house that had two apartments; I lived in one, rented the other out.) Most tenants are functionally judgement-proof, unless you only rent to upper-middle class people. Sure, you might get a judgement against them, but that doesn't mean you'll ever see a penny of it. As far as not being a slumlord, I have absolutely no tolerance for landlords that don't want to keep properties in good repair, full stop. Yeah, it's expensive to replace a roof, but fuck you, that's why you're taking in rent.

It really is the Dems on this one. Esp. in MA, which has a Democratic supermajority. And California, and New York, and Illinois. All of those things you are saying are problems are problems created by Democrats, in Democratic-controlled states, because wealthy Democrats don't want to live near poor people.

I'm not saying Republicans are better; Republicans absolutely have a "fuck them poors" attitude, and the Dems are at least claiming to want to treat people decently. But Dems aren't following through with what they say they want to do--affordable housing for all--while Republicans are definitely following through with their promise to fuck everyone that isn't already in the top 10%.

BTW - section 8 should be great for a landlord. You are guaranteed payment on the 1st of every month, and you can still initiate eviction if the tenant is trashing your property or doing crime. But most landlords that aren't slumlords generally hate that shit, because they don't want poor people living there even if they're getting their money. It's stupid and short sighted.

They're threatening to evict you, yes. But actually evicting you, in at least some states, can be challenging. I know someone that rented out his entire home (long story), and got paid about three months of rent before they quit paying. It took him nearly two years to get them out. (Last I knew he was suing the agent that vetted them; apparently there was collusion, and the tenant has done this multiple times before.)

The flip side is that if you quit paying your mortgage, it's also going to take months or years to get you out of the house, but then the bank has a piece of real estate. Banks don't want to own real estate; that's not their business. They're not set up to buy and sell real estate. Foreclosing on a house costs a bank a lot of money.

A roof that fails on a 500-unit apartment complex will be cheaper to replace per unit than the roof an a single family home. Same with a water heater that serves multiple families rather than a single family. Honestly, it's a good argument for communes, but communes have their own set of social problems, since it can be hard to get people to take responsibility for shit unless you go into it with the same kind of contract that you'd have when renting.

You run into a problem that you need to mitigate for this to work: qualifying for a mortgage.

A landlord can rent to you for a year--or less--and they assume the risk of you not paying and needing to evict you. Their income verification can be a lot more loose as a result. A bank is going to be in a relationship with you for 15-30 years; they want to be pretty sure that you're going to be able to meet your financial obligations for that whole time period. As a result, they're going to be quite a bit more strict about proof of income, etc.

Renting can be cheaper, too; a tenant isn't on the hook for repairs to a unit, but when I need a new roof in my house, or the water heater goes out, I get to pay every penny of that myself. Yeah, the mortgage is cheaper, but just because you can afford the mortgage doesn't mean that you can afford everything else that goes into owning a home.

You also get into weird and perverse tax and zoning incentives that can make it difficult to build any kind of affordable housing; Dems say they want affordable housing, right up until someone wants to put it in their neighborhood, then they start acting like Republicans.

Yes, the lack of affordable housing is a huge problem. But it's not quite as black and white as it often seems.

I'm pretty sure that I've got a failing E: drive in my home computer; I'm not even sure how long I've had it. Def. time to back everything up again. Pity I don't have a NAS at home...

You don't keep it completely powered off; you power it on occasionally, but don't keep it constantly running.

Parts that are constantly moving wear, and will eventually fail. Things that are never used can seize. You want to have a happy medium. But that's also why you want to have multiple mechanical drives that you're cycling through; if any single device fails, you still have your data backed up.

No, I'm not saying replace the drive annually. That would, indeed, be dumb. I'm saying copy the data back and forth between hard drives that are kept offline.

To build on this: DO NOT USE AN SSD to store your data long-term! Solid-state storage has a very short, finite life-span. What you want to do is buy an even number of hard drives, plug them in long enough to copy your data to, and then unplug them and store them in a climate-controlled area. bout once a year, copy the data to a different hard drive, rinse, and repeat. Left untouched long enough, a hard drive will experience data rot. Used constantly, a hard drive will wear out. Used very sporadically, you preserve the data and the mechanical parts of the hard drive.

No situation requires you to put your life above others.

Demonstrably false in the case of emergency vehicles. Going faster is not necessarily a risk; the autobahn has generally lower rates of accidents than the US interstates, despite people routinely driving >140mph.

Speed limits have always been a compromise between utility and lethality. You could nearly eliminate all accidents by having speed limits be no more than 20mph in any place. But it's recognized that this isn't practical, so we set speed limits at 25mph in school zones, 35 in residential/city roads, 45 on rural roads, 55 on unlimited access highways, and 65/70 on most interstates. Higher utility--an emergency--necessitates taking more risk.

If someone will die if you don't break the speed limit, versus someone might die if you do, you're probably going to break the speed limit.

I thought that it, and the vasclips, had both failed in the larger clinical trials at achieving birth control rates that were even on par with hormonal BC. This is what I'm remembering from like seven or either years ago though (and internet search is such garbage now that I don't know if I could find the sources I'm remembering).; there might be a different formulation now, or something.

You are comparing sperm count and egg count as if the amount it an issue

That's because it is. If you have a 95% reduction in number of eggs, then your odds of pregnancy are very, very low. If you have a 95% drop in sperm count, then it's still pretty easy for a woman to get pregnant.

Yes, taking hormonal BC is pretty bad for a number of women. OTOH, it's a life saver for some women, like the ones that have 3.5 week periods. For women that experience adverse side effects from hormonal BC, I'd suggest IUDs. For the very, very small number of women that neither IUDs nor hormonal BC work for, I'd suggest using condoms, and avoiding states run by Republicans.

For men that aren't sure, I would always suggest vasectomy first, or just learn to be gay (since it a choice, dontcha know, /s). If you end up changing your mind, be a foster parent.