Can we keep the context of what we’ve previously discussed instead of rewinding the conversation and repeating ourselves? I thought we agreed earlier that it’s fair for tenants to pay for expenses related to usage of the home and it makes sense to distribute that over time across all tenants.

[…] Imagine being the tenant that moves in just as the roof needs replacing and getting hit with a bill in the tens of thousands for a roof that you’re only going to be using for a year or two.

Then landlords should send me an itemized invoice that details each of the expenses incurred while I’ve been a tenant, a breakdown detailing how any rent payments cover the cost of those expenses, and a payment plan that we can negotiate to ensure both parties are getting fair deals. […]

It sounds like you understand now how that number comes about and why it isn’t zero, right?

[…] I’ve already told you I don’t agree. Paying a non-zero amount of rent is always parasitic.

[…] What’s this business about itemized bills to make them fair if the bills are zero?

Landlords don’t do that. Until they do, they’re parasites. […]

Did I misunderstand what you’re saying here? I understood it as meaning that an itemized bill for your rent with the ability to negotiate in order to come to a fair deal for both parties is sufficient condition to qualify as non-parasitic.

You can’t convince me that a landlord can provide potentially multiple properties worth of value over the span of a lease

Nor would I ever try to because I don’t believe they do either.

We’re not talking about what they currently do though. The question is what they should do in order to be fair and non-parasitic. Where the threshold lies between parasitic and non-parasitic.

So far, I understand that you’re convinced ownership is necessary if any payment is involved. What I don’t understand is why*. We agreed that people should be paid for their labour. What makes home rentals special in that regard?

* Mainly to understand how a system with such a rule can make sense.

I wouldn’t be trying to convince you of it if you agreed, would I?

What’s this business about itemized bills to make them fair if the bills are zero?

We already agreed that market rate is too high. What I’m trying to convince you of is that there exists a non-zero positive value that is reasonable to charge someone as rent. It sounds like you understand now how that number comes about and why it isn’t zero, right? How to ensure that the deal is fair is a whole other matter. The point is that such a deal exists.

The fact that many of these expenses don’t occur monthly is precisely why most people prefer having them split up and paid over time instead of being billed at the time of the work. It makes for much more predictable expenses, and we like predictability.

Imagine being the tenant that moves in just as the roof needs replacing and getting hit with a bill in the tens of thousands for a roof that you’re only going to be using for a year or two.

I remember a game of Avalon where a fellow autist declared that the game was trivial and told us his strategy for deducing the traitor. His mistake was making a hard assumption on the players’ risk tolerance. The round where I was traitor, I meta-gamed the shit out it. It was hilarious watching his confusion when nothing panned out the way he thought.

Right, so that makes sense then. We don’t need an exchange of physical goods to make a fair exchange because labour and expertise has value. And ownership is not a service that merits payment. We agree on both of these points.

Renting out a home doesn’t have to involve any work on the part of the owner, but it can. Think of all the work you need to do as a home owner and that you wouldn’t need to do when renting. These are the services you get.

“My kids will live the life I wish I had”

Sorry, I’m having a hard time making sense of your must-transfer-physical-object stance. How do you have a functioning society without services?

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.

In my experience, LLMs tend to be pretty good as long as you know the topic well and are capable of judging the quality of its output. They will always spit out a mix of good data with trash. So if you’re set on using an LLM for this, you’ll either need to learn to cook without a recipe or accept whatever level of trash you might get from it.

For things like cook time, it’s never going to be exactly right regardless of whether you get the numbers from an LLM or from a reputable cookbook. Things will vary depending on the temperature of your stovetop, size of the cut, freshness of the ingredients, the atmospheric pressure, etc. The only way to get this right is practice.

Otherwise, if this is working out for you, then I see no reason to change anything. If you have specific problems though, we might be able to give some more helpful tips.

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.

I imagine they would have the same eating experience as those mini shrimps commonly used in Chinese cooking. Meaning, great tasting but very unpleasant texture due to the shell.

This suffocated the turtle

Oh, they use it to gain goodwill, attract talent, and get free labour. It’s no secret. Zuckerberg openly talks about this.

I wouldn’t call it bait though. They’re legitimately good projects, and you’re free to make use of them while giving nothing back.

I don’t believe it’s possible. As far as I can tell, you’re very limited in how much you can scale up on any planet until you’ve gotten research from all the others. 300k scrap should get you about 3k science, plus you can mine those pink plants for holmium ore. That should be more than enough for your first visit.

Correction: Elevated rails can be researched before you ever leave Nauvis. That should allow you to transport scrap between islands.

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