> Netflix to Acquire Warner Bros. Following the Separation of Discovery Global for a Total Enterprise Value of $82.7 Billion (Equity Value of $72.0 Billion)
I know this isn't the main point, but does anyone else find this sentence a nightmare to read? "Bros." makes me think we're in a new sentence; This would be fine if the next word wasn't arbitrarily capitalised. Why do people write like this? Why not just capitalise the proper nouns?
That's usually how it works for me in the US. I go in to the pharmacy, and at least half the time they say 'no cost' and hand me my medication. Sometimes I pay a $25 copay. And if I get an expensive drug from Eli Lilly (e.g. Zepbound) then Eli Lilly pays Walgreens up to $1950/year on my behalf and I never even know about it. The only way I figured it out myself was trying to figure out why my insurance said they paid X, and I paid Y, but I had actually only paid $25. Took a trip onto a Zepbound subreddit to learn about the backdoor payment thing. "Savings card" but not actually a card.
Knowledge of all available codecs is certainly not the same tier as basic computer literacy. I agree it doesn't need to be dumbed down to the general user, but we also shouldn't assume everyone here know every technical abbreviation.
$1700 per month pays off a $350k loan in 17 years, does it not? That's assuming that the household income stays static over that time.
That is very reasonable. In Australia, 35 year mortgages are normal, and 25-30 year mortgages were normal 20 years ago. Why would your household income need to be 1/4 of the cost of the house to make it work?
> $1700 per month pays off a $350k loan in 17 years, does it not?
No, it does not. You forgot the interest. Let's call it 6%, close to the current US average.
The interest by itself comes to more than $1700 a month!
Paying $1700 per month, you'll never pay off $350k, even with a 1000 year mortgage.
To pay in 17 years, you'd need to pay $2741 (plus fees) per month. Most of that will be interest at first, but it tapers down. If you want to start out not paying mostly interest, you'll need to pay at least $3500 (plus fees) per month.
The parent I was replying to stated a $70k deposit on this, meaning it would take about 25 years, so my early morning maths was a bit off. Even so, that doesn't seem unachievable?
Yes and no. A lot of people have gaps in their financial education.
That said, mortgages aren't rocket science.
1. Assume at the end of the day you want the homeowner to be paying a stable monthly amount*.
2. In order to get there, you have {loan term}, {interest rate}, and {loan amount} as primary variables.
3. Assuming {loan term} and {interest rate} are constant (in a given mortgage market, at a given time), that leaves {loan amount} as the only variable.
So how do you get a constant monthly payment for a variety of {loan amounts}?
4. You add up all the interest that would be owed over the entire {loan term}, using {interest rate}, then divide each monthly payment into some proportion of {interest payment} and {principle payment}.
5. You also front-weight the interest payments, because at that time there's more outstanding total loan (versus at the end of the loan term, when only a little principle remains to be paid back).* *
Not super complicated. Yes, there's compound math, but conceptually simple.
* For some definition of stable, even if it readjusts on some schedule
* * Point in time interest pricing like this also makes future recalculation for over/underpayments easier, as you're essentially trued-up on interest payments at all times
The example rate on the calculator is 5.35, about right when the base rate is 3.6 percent (though you can get lower), using that your $350k mortgage will take 40 years to pay off at $1700 per month. A $300k mortgage would take about 30 years. Or a $230k mortgage could be paid in your 17 years.
None of these loan amounts will get you anywhere close to a house in Australia today. You're looking around $1 million for the average house in most of the capital cities, with very few available under about the $650k mark.
The payment is set up such that the interest is amortized over the life of the loan, so your earliest payments are almost all going to interest and the latest payments are mostly the principle.
This looks like a standard 30 year loan. If 100% of the 1700 went to principle and the was no interest then yeah, your 17 years works out, but then the bank makes no money.
The most concerning part is people are surprised. Anti-gravity is great I've found so far, but it's absolutely running on a VM in an isolated VLAN. Why would anyone give a black box command line access on an important machine? Imagine acting irresponsibly with a circular saw and bring shocked somebody lost a finger.
> Why would anyone give a black box command line access on an important machine?
Why does the agentic side of the tool grant that level of access to the LLM in the first place? I feel like Google and their competition should feel responsibility to implement their own layer of sandboxing here.
Because the marketing copy says that all you have to do is have a dream and you, too, can vibe code your very own money-making React app! Just type in what you want and the magical black box will vomit up an app for you, no esoteric programming knowledge required.
And then everyone is surprised when newbies take this advice at face value.
I tried this but I have an MBP M4, which is evidently still in the toddler stage of VM support. I can run a macOS guest VM, but I can’t run docker on the VM because it seems nested virtualization isn’t fully supported yet.
I also tried running Linux in a VM but the graphics performance and key mapping was driving me nuts. Maybe I need to be more patient in addressing that.
For now I run a dev account as a standard user with fast user switching, and I don’t connect the dev account to anything important (eg icloud).
Coming from Windows/Linux, I was shocked by how irritating it is to get basic stuff working e.g. homebrew in this setup. It seems everybody just YOLOs dev as an admin on their Macs.
I'm fairly sure all the first three points are true for each new human produced. The environmental cost vs output is probably significantly higher per human, and the population continues to grow.
My experience with large companies (especially American Tech) is that they always try and deliver the product as cheap as possible, are usually evil and never cared about social impacts. And HN has been steadily complaining about the lowering of quality of search results for at least a decade.
I think your points are probably a fair snapshot of peoples moral issue, but I think they're also fairly weak when you view them in the context of how these types of companies have operated for decades. I suspect people are worried for their jobs and cling to a reasonable sounding morality point so they don't have to admit that.
Plenty of people have moral concerns with having children too.
And while some might be doing what you say, others might genuinely have a moral threshold they are unwilling to cross. Who am I to tell someone they don't actually have a genuinely held belief?
reply