Lndlrd

You realize the cabin audio is background audio in that video -- edited to be much lower volume than the foreground narrator, right?

Like, how about I share a video of a hellcat 0-60 but turn down the audio to 1% and call it quiet?

99% agreed.

Reserving 1% because I'd strike "lesser technical" from your final sentence. The misleading quote is simply not correct. It is misleading because it's not true. It says Confluence hosted in the cloud is not vulnerable. False statement that can mislead anyone regardless of how technical they are.

Anecdotally, yes, I eat less meat now for environmental reasons, and I think you're right to generalize.

Especially in progressive cities and circles, meat and oil are in the same class. It's hip to eat veg, socially conscious.

In Seattle I know many people who live on flat routes and don't bike. I don't think the hills are the main deterrent. Anecdotally, it sounds like fear factor (especially riding near cars) and sweat (even if office has a shower) are the big ones.

Ctrl+F "exploit", appears 24 times in this 13-paragraph article.

> "Defining exploitation as being overcharged relative to the market value of a property"

The ratio they've based their narrative on is called GRM (gross rent multiplier): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_Rent_Multiplier

GRM is one of many factors when analyzing investment options. Other important factors include appreciation and expenses (maintenance, property management, etc). Cap rates are a better indicator than GRM (because they include expenses) but still not comparable across asset classes due to appreciation (HCOL++) and unaccounted overhead (LCOL--).

I own both (LCOL oil region, HCOL tech region). If the numbers were equal anyone would only choose the tech region, because of urbanization and future expectations for those industries. It's the same reason P/E ratios on tech stocks are so much higher than on oil stocks. So cap rates are higher on my LCOL oil region properties (approx 6, vs 4 in the tech region). But that's just market forces. If cap rates were equal why would anybody buy in the oil region? Even if you exclude the market's predictions for the future (oil vs tech), the LCOL has additional overhead (more properties at equal value).

Reducing the conversation to cap rates and ESPECIALLY reducing the conversation to GRM - relabeling GRM to "exploitation ratio" - shows these prestigious authors (MIT & Princeton) aren't interested in answering any real questions. They're too smart to believe GRM indicates exploitation. They therefore must have an agenda.

The most interesting question raised is who funded their study, else why are they spending their time forging this narrative?