I've started regularly visiting a couple coffee shops in Tokyo whenever I go there and I'm on first name basis with the owners/managers, whereas if I go to the same shops in the SF Bay Area more regularly it's rare that anyone recognizes me.
I definitely prefer that neighborhood coffee shop feel and at least shops I go to near home don't have that. Even the smaller ones with similar amounts of business and number of employees as the ones in Tokyo.
It's still easier to turn around a ring than to fiddle with a a phone. And more legal as well, no laws against rotating a ring while rinding your bike. That's fully haptic, no is drawn from traffic for that.
I'd be curious what happens if you're the kind of person who wears a ring a bit more loosely and/or has slippery skin.
That button isn't always going to be facing your thumb. Maybe you rotate it back with your thumb? Or you need to use your other hand anyway to rotate it?
I have an electric water boiler like that also. I have to be very mindful to press a button to turn it off if i return it empty to the induction plate/holder otherwise it starts clicking and beeping and freaking out.
I'm teetering on the edge of being able to afford a small condo (a small SFH would be nice but not as much supply) in the Bay Area (SF).
However, I keep thinking about how someone I know was laid off last year only two months after buying their first home.
I'm a SWE making OK money here but not FAANG/unicorn-level, so it's tough to imagine buying and then being on the hook for a mortgage without a job even with some savings.
}}}} I'm teetering on the edge of being able to afford a small condo (a small SFH would be nice but not as much supply) in the Bay Area (SF).
Posting this anon. At our last office, executives purposefully encouraged home ownership because it made people desperate, risk-avoiding, and easier to control.
my last boss said i needed more work-life balance because i would take my dog on a walk once during the workday. as in, i wasn't giving work enough of my time.
I hate to repeat this old adage, but in case it helps to see it here: if you've been wanting to buy something, and you see yourself staying in the area and the place itself for many years, and you have some savings buffer if things go south, then buy. Don't do it because you want to magically have paper equity gains in the next 12 months. Do it because you like the place you're looking at, the neighborhood it's in, and because you have enough funds in place to get through a downturn if a layoff happened.
Of course I say all of that and it's good to know what could happen if a terrible downturn does happen like in 2008 (even the nicest Bay Area hoods prices dropped 25%+).
Last thing, single family houses, especially in the Bay Area, are typically more insulated from price drops (insulated not immune). If you can afford a small single family then it might be worth it, especially if there's expansion potential (either for yourself or the next buyer if you decide to move on). And even better if there are some cosmetic problems that are tractable because let's say you do get laid off there's nothing like building some sweat equity in the downtime.
Just my two cents having gone through similar in the past.
FOMO is a powerful emotion, but like all emotions its a bad idea to make it a primary decision maker for any important matters.
Reading all this from distant Europe, its interesting (and logical) how in US the swings in prices are so extreme in both directions. In fact, most things in any regard are way more extreme in US compared to Europe. May be good for the lucky ones but long term stability or dependability this ain't.
If you're taking what I said as FOMO I didn't intend it that way. The opposite in fact unless your sentiment is that anyone who wants to buy and live in property in the US is solely doing so because of FOMO. If you're saying that then that's a tautology and so how can I argue with it?
But if that's not what you meant then there are few things we as people can do for "stability and dependability" that better accomplish those goals than owning property that you actually want to live in. Most importantly it puts a permanent roof over your head, which we all need in some way, shape or form to survive (no exaggeration there I don't think). And it makes the cost of that necessity predictable, especially in California where property taxes are almost perfectly-predictable. It pretty much de-risks the largest expense most people will have in their lifetimes. That's not to say that you don't lose something in the proposition, but calling that FOMO seems inaccurate.
There are entire nations which mostly spend their whole lives renting. Ie where I live - Switzerland, many nordics. Maybe correlation with highest happiness levels in the world is coincidental, maybe its not. Happiness simply comes from other things in life than 'my castle my kingdom'.
I know its a typical US mindset (and far from US only) to have a house on your own, but its still an emotion in same vein what you describe. Mixed with rationale of course since proper social net in US is nearly non-existing, if you fail out with you on the street.
Also a rationale would be about very high chance of good return on such investment so don't take this as some sort of attack. I also own my place (apartment) but took it as a location & social bonds stability point for kids mostly, whether it will earn something compared to inflation is not that important to me, it probably won't or very little. Good bigger apartment close to nature trumps a crappy house in my view but thats personal opinion. Even when owning, its almost impossible to retire here in Switzerland, the costs are prohibitive even on Swiss pensions. Unless you want to live as relatively poor, same money gets you much further almost everywhere else. So that stability is always temporary.
Yeah, "jd," the sibling reply here pretty much summed up my sentiment so I'll just say "ditto" to what they said and add: I wonder if maybe you're being a bit one-sided based on some assumptions about Americans in general. It isn't, as far as I'm concerned, as one-sided as you make it out to be. That's not to say that housing isn't an emotional purchase, it for sure can be and probably almost always partially is, but to say that's the primary reason doesn't reflect my experience here. Unless we're having a semantic disagreement about what financial prudence and practicality means. I just think those two things are decoupled from FOMO for the most part.
> Happiness simply comes from other things in life than 'my castle my kingdom'.
I know its a typical US mindset (and far from US only) to have a house on your own, but its still an emotion
This is a frustratingly uninformed take. You are comparing apples to oranges by equating your decision-making process with that of someone in the US. The drive to own a house in the US is not just mediated by “emotion” - the calculus is fundamentally different than in many nordic countries. For instance, very few places in the US have rent control, which means that renting represents substantial risk of either experiencing a large increase in cost, or being forced to move at irregular intervals. On the other end of the spectrum, the US is one of the only places that offers 30 year mortgages, which means that (taxes and repairs aside) buying a home on credit still offers a high level of predictable cost over the long term.
Also, at least historically, there are very many places in the US for which housing is very affordable, given that the USs overall population density is so much lower than the average European country.
This is of course not to suggest that buying is always a good call - but it is often a logical and financially sound one.
I know a lot of people in the Bay Area who did exactly the opposite in 2017-19, looking at how prices doubled, they assured me in 5 years their investment would double as well.
Do you mean the opposite as in they purchased because they wanted to make some money? If so, that makes sense since one of the many reasons people buy homes is to invest in them. Here's hoping you didn't follow their lead, though, given https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEDLISPRIPERSQUFEE6075.
But even having said that, people will buy houses or condos in SF today and make a profit in spite of any broader market conditions. But that seems dumb for someone who has a full-time gig that's anything other than identifying underpriced residential investment opportunities given how crazy both housing prices and equity (tech in particular) prices are.
Yes, opposite meaning they purchased to make some money. I'm happy I didn't follow their lead and it made me way more mobile during the pandemic and investments that would be paid as a fat down-payment grew significantly (even if considering leverage housing enables).
So what you’re saying is, if you want a condo, just wait, because a price drop soon means your money will go a lot further. If you want a SFH, buy now, price drop will be small.
Not quite what I was saying, but now that you've put that so succinctly, if it were me, knowing the Bay Area and what's happening in tech/AI at the moment, I would hold off on the condo. The single family with some grit I'd probably say have at it assuming the most important part of what I said holds true: it's not for equity upside, it's because you want to own that place, and in that location because that's where you will be happy living.
If someone reads this thread once there's been another 2008-level reckoning in 2026 I'm not surprised the reckoning occurred.
>it's tough to imagine buying and then being on the hook for a mortgage without a job even with some savings
Key thing to remember here is that you always have to live somewhere, even if you're laid off. Unless you're ready to head out to BFE to save a few hundred bucks on rent, it doesn't get much better than owning in that situation. Plus you could potentially have equity to tap, get a hardship forbearance, or worst case scenario foreclosures take much longer than evictions. This was the lesson COVID era taught me; if you're losing your home it's considered a tragedy, and there are tons of resources to help you. But if you're being evicted from an apartment it's considered a personal moral failure, and you're treated like a criminal.
Owning is only more expensive than renting if depreciation + interest + maintenance exceeds rent. And in most US cities, depreciation is negative in the long run.
Lots of advantages to owning and having a mortgage too: deduct mortgage interest from taxes, use equity as a line of credit, you can actually make substantial changes to your living space, and so on.
I waited till I had the whole sale price in cash then bought, it's reduced my layoff anxiety 1000% and I'm sure it's not the savviest financial choice, but I'm happy with the security of knowing I can stay here for a long time no matter what
It depends on the appreciation and in turn the property taxes. I own my house outright. Completely paid off. But the increases in property taxes is forcing us to sell and move, likely in the next 5 years. Too bad, love the neighborhood and the area.
I don't understand. The increase in property tax is forcing you to sell? How much percent is the property tax? Alternatively won't you make a windfall in the sale (I assume property tax only go up when the value goes up)
In most places in the US (california being a notable exception) taxes are reassessed regularly based on market conditions. In some areas this can result in the property taxes rising to an appreciable fraction of the mortgage rate - or in the GPs case, what the mortgage would have been, if they hadnt paid it off already.
Yeah. Unfortunately the real market value grew so fast that when the assessed value catches up over the next few years the property tax is going to take a nice chunk of my net income.
Honestly, this is not a hardship but a nice problem to have. I grew up chronically poor and I feel fortunate and grateful that we have a comfortable home that is ours with equity while a lot of people have housing insecurity.
I agree on the windfall part but selling to get that money is not that simple in the current real estate market and political climate. ie you got to live somewhere... and everywhere you desire is expensive.
If you own the house outright then how can the increased value force you to sell? You don't have a mortgage, and your property tax can't be that much more than a normal rent in the area. Can it?
Because of the rising tax rate relative to income. Ours is projected to increase to about 20% of our net income. That's why.
So yeah nice on paper that the house is worth a lot more than we bought it... but that value matters if we sell and move. There is a lot more to that decision than just the property tax, however it sort of putting a time limit to it.
Most people will never be able accomplish this because home prices increase so much. And meanwhile you have to live somewhere, and all the rent money is money you dont get to save or put towards home equity
I would assume it depends on how it generates the images.
I've used Claude to generate fairly simple icons and launch images for an iOS game and I make sure to have it start with SVG files since those can be defined as code first. This way it's easier to iterate on specific elements of the image (certain shapes need to be moved to a different position, color needs to be changed, text needs an update, etc.).
Claude does image generation in surprising ways - we did a small evaluation [1] of different frontier models for image generation and understanding, and Claude is by far the most surprising in results.
similarly, there's a youtube channel called Mighty Car Mods that does builds also and even the ones they "rush" can take months and thousands of work hours from people from multiple disciplines (body repair, paint, electrical work, tuning, etc.). Not cheap at all.
reply