Peasants have unemployment insurance. If government is supposed to pay something on top of it, why do we even have unemployment benefits to begin with?
The goal of saving is to have a lifestyle that you can MAINTAIN during retirement.
- if you save 60% of your income, your lifestyle will be severely damaged and you won't become a spender all of a sudden the day after retirement.
- If you save 5% of your income, then you won't be able to lower your lifestyle once you retire.
Saving 15/20% of income isn't a magic number. But it's something that doesn't damage your lifestyle + it accumulates to a meaningful amount that saves your ass in old times.
Going aggressive in either direction (spending or saving) is not the right mindset, because you won't be able to CHANGE once you adopt a specific lifestyle.
To help them go to extra curricular classes they enjoy, university, study or live abroad, buy a house …
My original point was about saving not having a single reason, but varied ones. Maybe not "as much as possible" but enough to provide for any of the things above for one‘s kids.
Yes it is. Developing any short term job -- that runs multiple seconds and goes away -- like lambda or k8s jobs with Java is meaningless for exactly this reason. The startup time is longer than the run time.
I guess it can be in a specific case: minigames servers (such as Hypixel), which are just a bunch of servers "connected" together. Players start into a "lobby" server, where they can choose a minigame, and are then sent to another server where they spend a few minutes.
The game servers don't restart after the end of a round, though, do they? I'd imagine they kick the players back to the lobby, reset the in-server game, and then tell the lobby to send the next batch of players.
You assume that load is constant, it isn't. And load varies not only with amount of players on minigames server, but with changes in distribution of players between minigames also.
There's usually more than one server per minigame. You could see it in the url you were redirected to; they had more servers running the more popular minigames.
Each minigame has a player limit, so the maximum load on any given minigame server is known (within the bounds of the minecraft sub-superset that makes up that minigame- but usually the minigames are deliberately limited/bounded in how much computation they need, as opposed to vanilla Minecraft). Extra players get sent to the next available server. If there's consistent overflow, at that point you might turn on a whole new server, or change a server's gamemode (I don't know to what degree Hypixel actually did/does this, or how often it's actually necessary).
The VM starts up plenty fast. The slow part is when people use reflective dependency injection containers that take seconds to scan the class path before before executing.
I see you aren't familiar with modern state of Minecraft servers. Due to Minecraft being limited to a one core big servers actually aren't a single instance. They use proxy servers(such as BungeeCord and it's forks) which distributes load between several lobby servers and from there people join one of custom gamemodes(Skyblock, Bedwars, etc). This allows for tens of thousands of people to play simultaneously, but not in the single world, while SMP(Survival Multiplayer) servers can run couple of hundreds at most. These giant servers are heavily containerized and automatically scale under load, so spinning up and shutting down servers is a pretty normal thing. And there have been some attempts to make Minecraft to run a single world on multiple instances(MultiPaper and some private ones), so even for usual SMP server it can be a commonplace soon as player join and leave.
> And there have been some attempts to make Minecraft to run a single world on multiple instances(MultiPaper and some private ones)
First time I hear about MultiPaper, another idea I had which I din't know someone was already working on LOL. It's a pretty promising idea considering the current performance problems of the game. This could possibly allow thousands of players in the same server which would be AMAZING, almost a completely different game. Imagine if MultiPaper was compiled to native using GraalVM.
Simply because blast radius for Java is limited to a set of very high quality libraries -- in terms of code not functionality. These libraries come from Apache Foundation, Eclipse Foundation, Google, Facebook, Spring, etc. Literally every single Java application depends on something from Apache [ok I understand stuff like Log4Shell can still happen].
The same is not true for JS. The most mature libraries depend on absurdly vague libraries that no one has ever reviewed.
I was going to ask the obvious question of why the Java ecosystem ended up differently than the JavaScript ecosystem, but I think I know the answer.
It's a giant pain in the ass to publish a Java library. That's already weeding out a ton of low-effort projects. By itself, I wouldn't exactly call that a good thing, but it seems to have a silver lining...
I don't know why this is being down voted. The entire modern bullshit Internet exists because of NAT. We can't host stuff ourselves and have to use some central system. Since nothing is free, the provider has to inject more and more ads everywhere.
Because it implies that it is the single reason that people don't host their own sites anymore, when in reality people don't because it is generally too difficult, expensive, unreliable and redundant to do so.
Almost nobody wants to host their own social media or messenger site and if you did your friends wouldn't use it too.
Besides, anyone who currently wants to do so can get a cheap VPS for dollars a month.
EVOO, Ghee (from grass fed butter), Coconut oil, Avocado oil, Sesame oil, Tallow, Lard and Butter (from grass fed animal) is all that you should be eating. Everything else belongs to trash bin.
I personally think this is the only reason causing work force depreciation among software engineers. If shit is changing every six months, then keeping up with changes should be part of the job, not part of the weekend.
If tourism + aviation is profitable combined, then why should we care? It's like Sony is not profitable by selling play station hardware. But game business unit is profitable because subscription income covers the hardware loss.
> If tourism + aviation is profitable combined, then why should we care?
I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic comment but I'll bite: because it's a net loss for everyone in the long term ? I know many people stop at "will it make us richer ?" step but there are other things to consider. We're not in the 1800s anymore, we know about pollution and its long term effects for a while now.
On top of that tourism might bring short term money but it's built on completely unstable funnels that can collapse at any point (cue covid), then you're left with regions of the world which lost the majority of their industries to tourism and are incapable of surviving or adapting when they're hit by the slightest hardship.
Happiest countries don't have the highest suicide rate.
Nordic countries do have a significant portion of population living in areas where SAD is prevalent, which naturally causes increase in suicide rates. Yet they are not the highest rates.
> Today, Munich is Germany’s most expensive city in which to buy property, with asking prices reaching €35,000 per square metre in some exclusive developments, according to Engel & Völkers. The average price per square metre in the city is €7,630, dwarfing the €2,993 in Germany as a whole. [0]
That's wild. In USD per square foot, that's $3,700/sqft, $800/sqft, and $316/sqft respectively. Meanwhile, San Francisco's median is $1,100/sqft, the metro area's is $500/sqft, and california's as a whole is $315/sqft, remarkably close to germany as a whole. America's is $123/sqft.
Thank god for SF salaries (apparently about 150% of munich salaries).
Even if it's half cheaper, a family house of 80-100m^2 costs beyond 600K which is way beyond affordability range of a couple both working as software engineers let alone people with non-tech jobs.
With mortgages in the 1.5-2% range, a 600K house would cost you €750 - €1000 a month in mortgage payments, and that's not even taking into account tax benefits you may get. That's an absolute steal compared to what you would pay in rent in a place like Amsterdam or London.
Why is that? Like, on the US west coast, ballooning home prices makes sense because their cities are in valleys with a fixed amount of land, but munich looks like it has a bunch of farmland around it that could be converted into housing increasing supply and thus decreasing prices. This coming from someone in chicagoland which has 9.5 million people but housing isn't crazy because the metro area sprawls 30-40 miles out into what used to farmland.
Because Germany is mostly old money, inherited for generations, that is very risk adverse so instead of investing it in new SW companies or buying stocks, they park it in real estate in desirable areas and prop up this bubble since it's a sure bet for a return on investment. That's why they call it Beton Gold ("concrete gold").
Munich has very strict limits on vertical height so that cathedral spires aren't drowned out by the buildings. On the edge of the city you do see some taller office buildings but not in the core, and certainly not to the extent you would expect in a major city.
Low interest rates certainly allow you to afford a more expensive home, but inflation adjusted price per square foot isn't actually skyrocketing for most of the US outside of the west coast [0]. For example, Dallas/Fort worth and Houston metro populations, the 4th and 5th largest in the US have both grown a whopping 19% in the past decade and prices aren't skyrocketing there. But they have plenty of land surrounding their cities that can be developed to increase the housing supply.
It just seems weird to me. Why are people paying such high prices when there is farmland so close by that you could buy and use to build some condominiums, townhomes, duplexes or even single family homes.
Yes, but renting doesn't give you that sense of security when you are thinking of having kids versus owning your own place. When you're renting the thought of the landlord kicking you out if the rental market should suddenly shift is a huge axe to child planning for most couples. Owning you own place offers a more secure feeling and belonging to a community.
This is pure make-belief. You should buy if a purchase is cheaper than renting. Guess what, it never is when interest rates are at zero.
Rent is determined by what people with jobs can pay, property prices are determined by what international investors with deep pockets and easy credit can pay. Which one are you? If you are the former, you will be paying down a mortgage that you can barely afford. You will be a slave to the property. What if you lose the ability to pay? How secure is your paycheck really?
Keep your cash, and invest it somewhere else. You can find a new place to rent. You can leave if your community turns to shit.
property prices are determined by what international investors with deep pockets and easy credit can pay.
The international investors with deep pockets own very, very, very few properties compared to regular people.
What if you lose the ability to pay? How secure is your paycheck really?
What if you lose the ability to pay rent? How does that make you any better off?
Keep your cash, and invest it somewhere else.
I have a mortgage with 75% of the principal left to pay, where the interest on the loan is somewhere between the third and the half of what I'd pay in rent for equivalent property. If I was renting instead of paying mortgage, I wouldn't have any cash to keep to invest elsewhere anyway.
You can find a new place to rent. You can leave if your community turns to shit.
You can also sell your house/condo and move somewhere else, at any time.
> The international investors with deep pockets own very, very, very few properties compared to regular people.
Doesn't matter, a rising tide raises every boat.
The point is that property prices have diverged from rental income, because low-interest credit from around the world is chasing properties, while stagnant wages imply stagnant rental income.
> What if you lose the ability to pay rent? How does that make you any better off?
I don't have to foreclose.
> I have a mortgage with 75% of the principal left to pay, where the interest on the loan is somewhere between the third and the half of what I'd pay in rent for equivalent property.
Between a third and a half? That sounds like a lot.
> If I was renting instead of paying mortgage, I wouldn't have any cash to keep to invest elsewhere anyway.
So you're saying your mortgage payment, taxes, insurance and upkeep is equal to rent? Where the hell do you live?
> You can also sell your house/condo and move somewhere else, at any time.
Not to mention, you'll still be paying those same mortgage payments (unless you refinance) a decade or two from now after the market has changed, and generally it goes up (even if it should only average going up by the amount of inflation).
I bought my house 6 years ago. Rent prices have gone up about 30% in that time. I used to think my payment was crazy compared to renting, not I know of people renting much worse locations that are paying more, and I'm about to drop the mandated PMI because I dropped below 80% of the principal left to pay, so my payment will go down be a couple hundred more.
From my experience there's plenty of 'sense of security' when renting, mostly coming from very strict pro-tennant laws: Limited rent hikes, no eviction unless the tenacity agreement is breached, etc. You can't just throw out of your home because someone wants to make a quick buck, you're protected as you should be.
Renters in Munich have very good protections. You effectively cannot be evicted without cause (and evidence), and most contracts are indefinite length (unless you are explicitly looking for <1 year).
