Sleeep

But if you bring your toddler on vacation then you'd have to vacation with a toddler.

If I was given a $500 hotel voucher (that was non-transferable and expires) and I had absolutely no use for a hotel room I would value that voucher at $0, yes.

Just like if Amazon offered me a year of prime membership for $10 I'd say "no thank you" because I value prime membership at $0. (Don't shop at Amazon much, don't mind waiting for shipping, have all the streaming I need)

You can't call your airlines tickets $18k in value because you wouldn't have spent $18k on two airline tickets. My value is the max I'm willing to pay for a ticket, not the price the airline says the ticket I redeemed for is worth. Bloggers say this too and it's disingenuous. For me those tickets would be $5k because that's the most I'm willing to pay for two tickets to Japan.

It's a pain to figure out the best way to get from point A to point B using points. You have to figure out which points to collect,then you have to collect enough of them, then figure out which time of the year to go where the redemptions you can afford are. Then you have to transfer and book on partner airlines. It certainly isn't straightforward.

Yeah, sure, you can do a big trip with two HUGE sign up bonuses of flexible points very easily. Being able to get one high quality trip isn't the same as being able to get many high quality trips, you aren't going to be able to do that a couple times a year (which is what bloggers make it seem like). Travel bloggers promote churning through cards to keep generating more points. You can't just churn through Platinum and CSR applications over and over again. (Platinum is churable to an extent but that's another topic and AMEX is cracking down on that)

Those two sign up bonuses you got are not common and the CSR one won't come back ever again (Chase is losing money on the CSR, look for a devaluation in the future).

Also your points have to be spread out among 5+ different loyalty programs if you want to continue churning credit cards/points/bonuses.

My redemptions are fine, they fit my needs. I have not redeemed a lot yet. I haven't planned a big trip yet. So far all my redemptions have been for a couple nights at a time. You aren't going to get as much value if you simply fly domestic. Flying to Japan may get you the most value but it's worthless if you don't want to fly to Japan.

Anyways, my point of the GP was:

-TPG and most travel blogs are a business that are making money off you.

-Points aren't as simple as "sign up for credit card, fly to Japan," you have to be flexible and usually to get a good redemption you'll have to transfer and book off peak. Availably is limited.

-To get more than 1-2 trips you're going to have to game the system. Sign up, collect bonuses, close card, repeat. You hit a wall with this after a while.

-Credit card companies are cracking down on gamers.

-Some people are better off getting part time job with how much effort they put into gaming the system.

-The rules are always changing.

[Most] credit card bloggers like The Points Guy are shills, don't listen to them. They make their money from affiliate marketing so they'll pimp the cards that make them the most (like Chase cards) and ignore deals that are good for you but bad for them. The Points Guy's website is owned by Bankrate.

Here's him getting called out on Reddit for some practices: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/471yey/im_the_points_...

The Points Guy and other credit card bloggers are like the people who hold "I Will Teach You To Get Rich" seminars at the Holiday Inn. He never answered when asked how much his salary he makes from his blog is but it's reported to be 7 figures.

This is not the golden age, it's pretty mainstream. Card issues are cracking down on gamers. AMEX just started putting terms about gaming in their application. Citi merged limits on sign up bonuses across their cards. Chase doesn't even approve you if you've opened too many credit cards in the last 24 months (5) and has long called out gaming as against their T&C.

Even if you get a million miles it's a chore to redeem them for something worthwhile. You also have to worry about keeping them from expiring.

I still collect points and miles but don't kid yourself that it's not a commitment. Most people who are serious in the miles/points game go out buying gift cards and then using ever closing loopholes to liquidate the gift cards. It's just crazy some of the time, money, and effort people put into it. Might as well get a part time job at that point.

Personally, in two years, between credit cards and bank accounts I've gotten $6,000 in realized worth (that is redeemed) and at least as much in unrealized worth. I've got my first rejection a few weeks ago.

This is a credit card blog that is independent, the only blog I look at: https://www.doctorofcredit.com

Luckily there is not a correct way to enjoy travel (or anything else in life).

It escapes me why someone would want to go all the way to Southeast Asia for that though.

A lot of people (myself included) are very unhappy in management

Yep.

https://qz.com/123642/physical-money-costs-americans-more-th...

>larger businesses spend a significant amount of money dealing with cash—collecting it, sorting it and getting it to the bank without it being stolen. US businesses lose $40 billion a year to cash theft and loss, about 1% of total revenues.

No, the companies pay the cost of handling cash as well.

There's the labor costs of handling cash - counting it, moving it, organizing it, accounting for it, making sure there's enough change to run a shift; the cost of storing and transporting it - safes, cash draws, key management, money transport/money transport companies; and the cost of loss due to theft, mistakes, and mismanagement.

I'm not saying that the cost of cash is more than the cost of card, I'm simply saying its not anywhere near free.

https://qz.com/123642/physical-money-costs-americans-more-th...

>But new research from Tufts University aims to highlight the pain points of cash, where digital currency can break in. The use of physical bills costs US consumers, businesses and the government at least $200 billion each year—about $1,739 per household. Here are the main reasons why:

>Small businesses don’t lose much money by operating cash-only. But larger businesses spend a significant amount of money dealing with cash—collecting it, sorting it and getting it to the bank without it being stolen. US businesses lose $40 billion a year to cash theft and loss, about 1% of total revenues.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2017/02/02/cashless-coffee-sho...

(There's also a potential to increase sales by accepting card.)

Handling cash is not free either, it also comes with transaction costs.

I tried to use android pay for a few months. In theory its great (and it's great when it works!) but like 30% of the time it doesn't really work the first time, you have to play around with it on the card reader. Then the phone vibrates like it worked but nothing happens. You look at the phone and it says "please hold the card to the reader again." and despite Subway accepting android pay (and the cashiers insisting that it works for everyone else) whenever I try to use it there I get a message "please insert card." I was never able to figure out the workflow to get it to work on a vending machine. Also the first time I used it I froze the register.

So 70% of the time it saves time and 30% of the time it wastes time. Then I broke my phone and bought a replacement without NFC so I don't have the option anymore anyways.

It's a great system, however, I think the kinks need to be worked out a little.

(I had a Nexus 5x FYI)

Depending on how survey questions are asked most people (>75%) express at least some interest in parenthood.

>everyone looking for a life partner should be doing a lot of online dating, speed dating, and other systems created to broaden the candidate pool in an intelligent way.

Anyone ever heard of the paradox of choice?

All of the research I've read hints at relationships that start with a dating website being being much more fragile than relationships that have met more traditional ways and much more likely to end with a bad outcome.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/the-science-of...

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/06/is-onli...

One may argue this is good that we are ending "bad" or "not perfect" relationships... the other side of the coin is online dating may not be leading us astray from actually meeting someone we are compatible with and is just a distraction or worse, it may be making us bad at relationships once we met someone.

She's an equine vet.

My old plan copays didn't count towards the deductible though, they were totally separate. Is that uncommon?

Yeah, around 2007 Target announced they had reduced a whole bunch of generic maintenance drugs to $5 for a 30 day supply. I was still paying a $10 copay at CVS, so I switched to Target and paid the $5.

That sort of information about your house is already public.

I am not. I am replying strictly to "this is pure censorship." So fucking what? At work we are absolutely expected and required to censor ourselves, that's practically the definition of "work."

---

I did skim it and it seemed like the pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo people who think they are being really smart but really are just being obnoxious write; since I read way to much of that sort of thing already I didn't care to read further.

Um, so? I censor myself at work every single day. If I routinely said some of the not so polite things that I sometimes think about my colleagues and (especially) customers I'd be fired. This is called "playing nice with others" and I learned it as a child.

I also sometimes think about topics that would be inappropriate in an office environment (such as sex) and I censor myself by not saying what I am thinking. We even have an Internetism for that concept - NSFW.

None of this is new - we are expected to conduct ourselves appropriately for the current situation. It's just how society works.

I didn't even read the document in question, I just have a very hard time with people getting riled up about being "censored" at work. It's work, what exactly do you expect?

Those costs are minor and not close to covering the cost of car ownership. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/driving...

I agree with you, however, I just want to point out that a completely destroyed house in a drug binge orgy party isn't even close to the worse case scenario, at least then you can "only" lose 100% of the value of your physical property, maybe ~$300,000. The worse case scenario is someone getting seriously hurt or dying, that could cost millions and has virtually no upper limit - https://medium.com/matter/living-and-dying-on-airbnb-6bff8d6...

Forgive my ignorance but is that too high or too low?

The PITI on my house is $1,250 ($750 P+I) with a 20% down payment at a 30 year fixed interest loan. I use about $200/month in utilities. This site says I can rent my entire house out for $210 a day so, in theory, renting it for seven days would pay for the housing costs ignoring any increase in insurance and utilities for turning it into a short term rental and totally ignoring maintenance and labor. (which, obviously, is a significant cost) Realistically I wouldn't be cash flow positive until day nine at least.

However, I think that's unrealistic, I believe the demand for my house would be extremely low at that price point. My house is very appealing for residents, I don't see it being particularly appealing for travelers and there's cheaper options for travelers.

My neighborhood is zoned residential, however, so I seriously doubt turning it into a hotel would be legal. My neighbors would complain as well (and that's nothing against them)

There is a big difference between a regular mortgage and an interest only mortgage.

Not keeping a tool box around the house very rarely means not having access to tools. Tools are commonly borrowed/shared amongst friends, family, neighbors, co-workers, borrowed from work, co-ops[1], makerspaces, or rented[2].

[1] https://www.houselogic.com/save-money-add-value/save-on-util...

[2] http://www.homedepot.com/c/tool_and_truck_rental

Oh, I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant the old school, obsolete, 19th century-type "golden age of whaling* ships, certainly not contemporary whaling.

In my mind I (rightly or not?) consider that in a different category altogether.

With changing technology, I think we've actually sorta lost a lot of the early methods of construction. The world's last remaining whaling ship the Charles W Morgan, took 7 months to build in 1841 but 5 years to restore in 2008-2013 using the original shipbuilding tools and techniques (when possible).[1] I just imagine the craftspeople restoring the ship were learning the old techniques for the very first time.

Ironically, she was supposedly built to only last 25 years. That might be just an urban legend tho.

[1] https://www.newbedfordguide.com/charles-w-morgan-whaling-shi...

This is correct. I "signed" several documents in that way for my mortgage and the "signatures" look identical to that.

My take:

The author maybe thinks she might feel shame about some of her past sexual partners; maybe he feels shame about some of his and believes given enough time everyone has shame about a sexual partner or two, for whatever reason.

The other option is the author thinks that she believes the author will see her in a negative light for some of her past sexual partners, for whatever reason, so she will not mention the ones that show her in a bad light.

Being a slut or a man-whore is not the same thing as "sleeping around a bit." If you're dating someone whose in their 30s, there's a good chance they've had a few sex partners, that doesn't mean they are slut, or "give it away for free," or whatever. They may even have been raped.

Sleeping around is perfectly ok on a personal level. Filtering your own sex partners by the criteria you choose is also perfectly ok. Both are taking personal control of your own sexuality even though they may seem conflicting to you.

(Personally I strongly prefer someone whose sexually experienced, but that's just my preference.)