Ive come to realize that there is very little that would make me truly comfortable with big risks, so I decided to just start taking them. If they dont work out, I will have the consolation that I tried, and so far, it has been working out well. I Got myself liable for a 7k mortgage, about 80% of my take home. Nervous about commitment but married my wife. Nervous about kids, but have one on the way.

If it all comes tumbling down tomorrow, I would be out a ton of money, but basically where I was 5 years ago. I wish I had taken the plunge on each of these things 5 years earlier.

Nothing risked, nothing gained.

I've actually started taking the same approach—despite the content of my comment—just not with huge amounts of debt for things that only offer tenuous personal value. So, for me I've decided that it makes way more sense to fully commit to my long term relationship, and if it fails eventually, it won't be because I was trying to keep one foot out the door. That said, aside from automatic common law designation, marriage is not something I'm planning atm, even after many years.

> I Got myself liable for a 7k mortgage, about 80% of my take home.

That is... spicy. I guess context matters though, if you're already financially secure and the ongoing income would otherwise just be added to other investments, and the remaining 20% is enough to cover you, and if you're in a place that locks in your interest rate for the whole mortgage, then I could see that being less dramatic. Likewise if you're both working or stand to inherit something.

Additionally, a mortgage is one of those things where if you've consistently earned whatever income it is, then it's more a matter of being excessively cautious. I've probably only ever earned an income for half of my working life; year on year I might make zero or full-time income, and the economy (in Canada) is indeed tangibly precarious right now.

Broadly I agree though. I wouldn't be in the relatively good position I'm in now without a series of scary bets earlier, moving to a new city, trying harder at more ambitious career moves etc..

It's just that there have been multiple times where I've lost a job, couldn't find _anything_ to pay bills with for long enough that I've literally dropped all the way to zero financially, losing the rental, and needing to live out of a car, so those kinds of liabilities just don't (yet?) make any sense. My hunch is that for people who haven't had that experience, it's more of a major milestone that they're eventually going to do without a doubt in their mind, they just need the raw salary number

If you think China is centrally planned, I think you are talking past each other. China has a deep market economy.

All land in China is state owned, what in the world are you talking about? I can't tell if you don't know about China's state-capitalism or if you're trying to do purity politics about economic governance. Literally no one would describe china as "not centrally planned"

Whenever they become so much a problem that they counterbalance public and private interests in having and improving robotaxis. For most people, we are nowhere near that.

Sounds like a problem with lack of competition. Would you have been happier if it was a publicly traded company that did it? Amazon health or some such?

What matters is if paramount can pony up enough money to buy. Stores don't reject your cash even if you are debt.

It seems to amount to a similar principle, that their business model depends on repeat customers, and would fail if they lost trust.

I much prefer this to stores that are happy to burn customers, never expecting to see them again.

>It seems to amount to a similar principle, that their business model depends on repeat customers, and would fail if they lost trust.

You think dollar general is making $37.9B (in 2023) of annual revenue from one-off customers? Unless you're operating a tourist trap, or some sort of business that people only need a few times in their lifetimes (eg. real estate agents), most businesses rely on repeat customers.

Dollar stores around here pop up in small towns, killing off any locally-owned competition, and are far enough away from the big chains to mean they can charge quite a bit more while offering terrible service.

No, I think they have other advantages that are less attractive to me.

I have money to buy in bulk, care about quality, and am willing to make longer trips to stock up. The membership is trivial relative to annual groceries.

I think think the target market for dollar stores is the opposite

Note how they tend to have captive customers.

Yellowstone is also caused by hotspot volcanism. The friendly eruption is a property of location, not hotspot origin.

Your initial post read the other way, which the parent post is addressing.

It's a brief and lighthearted explanation and trying to overgeneralize it doesn't make sense. There's always more details to it. Besides, there's plenty of shield volcano ("nice") events in the history of the Yellowstone hotspot.

That is not a standard definition of profitability, and basically a version of the sunk cost fallacy. you dont go bankrupt from sunk costs.

If people with 20/20 vision are having trouble, I'm sure that people with diminished eyesight but above the legal limit have it worse.

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that we should ban more people from driving just so others can have excessively bright and sometimes illegal headlights.

There is clearly a tipping point where you either get filthy restaurants, fewer restaurants, or take out only.

Anyways, there is no shortage of necessary low skill labor that can be done unrelated to food or money.