SoTier
-
Posts
4,501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoTier
-
-
14 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:
There is only one investment you ever put a large portion of your net worth into…and that’s real estate. It’s forever, there will never be more, and it will forever go up in value, even after it dips during recessions.
Why these dumb idiot athletes invest in anything else is beyond me. He could have put $10M into rental properties, paid cash, let a company manage the tenants and renters, and collected easily be generating $60k-$80k a month in rents for life all free and clear with no mortgages while his property portfolio value would continue to climb over time.
Its so easy it’s sickening to see athletes go broke. Even when property values decline, rents stay the same. It’s the easiest mail box money in the world, and it’s why the 1% club of the wealthiest people mostly built that wealth on real estate.
This is a very simplistic view of investing for building wealth. Contrary to your rosy scenario, there are numerous pitfalls in real estate investing, not the least of which is that real estate is perhaps one of the most difficult assets to liquidate. It's also prone to disastrous hazards that can wipe out most of the investment in minutes: fires, earthquakes, floods, etc. Real estate investors also have expenses that simply don't apply to stocks or crypto or precious metals, namely they have to maintain their properties even when they aren't bringing in rents. IOW, investing in rental real estate has some real drawbacks and not for everyone.
Your observation about the 1% club isn't correct. Making great fortunes in real estate generally involves speculation or the development of real estate rather than long term ownership of residential or commercial units for rental income.
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, What a Tuel said:
Whats the advantage to being paid in crypto as opposed to being paid in usd and then buying crypto with it? Isnt it taxed as income either way?
Maybe the dude has abandoned all financial transactions based on USD. Probably not the wisest move since crypto isn't accepted for most ordinary purchases.
-
8 minutes ago, Captain Hindsight said:
Darnold is a "can do" QB. meaning he can make all the throws and looks the part. But he is extremely careless with the football and that hasn't changed since his rookie year. His first throw was an across the body pick 6!
Darnold is awful. Jets were really smart to move on. Whether or not Wilson works out is another story, but people loved to bash on Gase (and not without merit) but Darnold did himself no favors
I agree. I remember that pick six -- it was just like so many of his picks in college. Whether carelessness or poor vision, Darnold isn't good enough to be a NFL QB not only because the talent level in NFL is much higher than in college, but also because the talent between the best teams and the worst teams is miniscule compared to the talent differences between top collegiate teams and bottom collegiate teams. There are no Ball States or Western Michigans or UBs for the top tier teams to fatten up on in the NFL.
-
12 hours ago, Limeaid said:
I agree he currently sucks. It takes longer to recover from pounding he got as a JEST and it takes time to unlearn everything he learned.
This made it a bad deal for Carolina. Darnold needs to be backup on a team with a good coaching staff and some work during off season as well.
Sorry but Bills slots are full unless he wants to sign on practice squad.
Darnold was the one QB from the 2018 draft that I absolutely didn't want the Bills to draft because his college game had a couple of big red flags despite his stats and publicity: he checked down too often and he threw stupid INTs with regularity. He has done the same with the Jests and with the Panthers. I suspect that he doesn't see the field as well as he needs to in order to be a good NFL QB, so he not only doesn't see open receivers, he too frequently doesn't see defenders.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Not at the table Karlos said:
Much easier to make money in crypto than a casino. Play the peaks and valleys. As long as it goes up and down there's easy money to be made.
For the ordinary person, I'm guessing that's unlikely. Market timing in the stock market has never proven to be an effective long term strategy for individual investors, so I can't see the much more volatile crypto markets being better. There are people who make good livings as professional gamblers at casinos but the average joe who wanders in off the street loses a lot more often than he wins.
-
1
-
-
Crypto in the 2020s seems to be where the stock market was in the 1920s: an unregulated investing "Wild West" where fortunes can be made overnight -- and lost in hours. A wise investor might put a very small percentage of his/her funds into it but in its present unregulated state, crypto seems about on a par with gambling at a casino or race track. Maybe the crypto collapse will put the brakes on the recent push by some financial companies to push crypto "investments" for 401ks and Roth IRAs.
-
On 6/16/2022 at 5:34 PM, Mr. WEO said:
Mayfield threw for 3725 yards (#8 all time) and 27 TDs (#2 all time) in 13 starts his rookie season. Was PFWA Rookie of the Year.
2 years later, he brought the Browns to their 1st playoff game in 18 years. 11-5 with 26 TD on only 8 ints. Was injured last year.
Voted by his peers as NFL top 100 players in 2019 (50) and 2020 (71).
Took Josh 3 seasons t get over 3100 yards per. Both with 59/60 starts, 14k yards, JA with 10 more TD. Josh is obviously the better player, but Mayfield came off the bus ready to play. He is part of an organization run by idiots. Not sure Carolina will do much for him (Cleveland may have permanently damaged him)--just a different group of idiots down there.
I think that Mayfield simply hasn't grown professionally. He started out at a high level (for a rookie QB) but he really hasn't upped his game significantly since his second season. Is that on him or on the Browns? I don't know. What I do know is that it's not uncommon for highly drafted QBs to fail to improve significantly after their first or second year as a starter.
-
3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
So being 24th in the NFL in completion % is bad?
Because that's where Josh Allen ranked last year.
Are you saying Josh Allen was a bad QB last season?
Maybe the stats you are choosing are poor choices.
You are totally f*cking beat in this discussion and just looking dumber with each successive entry.........put in the reserves.
Is there some point to your continuing attempts to "prove" Rob Johnson wasn't a crappy QB? I mean, other than your need to argue contrarian positions that aren't supported by facts in order to demonstrated your superiority to everybody else.
-
1
-
-
IMO, Rob Johnson is more of a Trent Edwards "doppelganger" than a Josh Allen "doppelganger".
Johnson and Edwards suffered from the same issue: they couldn't read defenses well and couldn't process what they did see fast enough to be effective. That's why they were inconsistent, mostly playing poorly but sometimes looking like they were actually competent QBs when playing against crappy defenses or when defenses went into "prevent" mode or when, like the proverbial blind squirrel, they luckily found a nut. They were both sacked so often because they held the ball too long. No amount of physical talent can make up for the lack of a QB being able to recognize defenses quickly and accurately and make good decisions based on what they see.
-
2
-
-
19 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
I gotta admit the guy has confidence in this like I’ve never seen. Like, flip the switch and everything is fundamentally changed and no bad things happen. So easy. I’m just curious if there’s a backup plan?
True believers don't need backup plans.
-
1
-
-
I have catbirds coming to one of my suet feeders that I located close to my tall arborvitae screen. The starlings either don't like the location or they haven't found it since it's on a combo feeder and faces the trees. They do clean up the other suet feeders in short order.
-
On 6/14/2022 at 10:25 PM, Poleshifter said:
I have tried to warn a few people about the coming collapse of the stock market. But I am not a financial advisor or economist, just a retired software engineer, so nobody listens. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether are doomed along with most other crypto. The only survivors will be those "coins" to be used in the quantum financial system, where ISO20022 certification is required.
There is a "***** hits the fan" event coming soon, perhaps this Thursday June 16 when Evergrande is removed from the stock market. When this happens, cryptos will take a quantum leap, in one direction or the other. Once things settle down, crypto trading should then be more of an incremental thing.
In your position, I would cash in a chunk of stock and buy XLM and XRP. Being risk averse, this is likely not an option.
Time will tell the rest of the story.
LOL. The doomsday prepper crowd has been warning "disbelievers" like me about "the manure hitting the fan" for the last couple of decades, most loudly back in the Great Recession. I've made a lot of money over that time by ignoring guys wearing tin-foil hats, so I see no reason to start listening to them just because the stock market has been down recently.
-
On 6/13/2022 at 1:15 PM, NewEra said:
That stance, imo, says that coaches are stagnant and they are what they are. That they cannot improve and make adjustments to better themselves.
If you truly believe that McD will be the same coach 5 years from now as he is today, you’re greatly mistaken. He’s improved immensely as a HC since 2017 imo. I fully expect a man with his passion and drive to succeed to continue to improve and evolve. The negative stain on your brain doesn’t allow you to see the obvious. While he made a huge mistake and lost that game in the final 13 seconds, he’s been adapting year after year and improving as a HC.
Just about any professional, whether in sports or another field, is better after several years into his/her career than at the start of it. Eventually, everyone peaks and then either stays at the same level or declines. In a field that's not dependent primarily on physical ability, there's not really a limit on how long somebody can continue to improve. Many athletes manage to make up for the declining physical abilities by continuing to improve the rest of their abilities. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees come to mind. Brady's in this group, too, although the decline in his physical abilities isn't particularly apparent yet.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Wacka said:
Haven't read the article yet, but from your recap, I think you got something incorrect. The antibodies in the therapy would not alter the cancer cells DNA. The antibodies trigger the patient's immune system to attack the cancer cells as foreign. The cancer's cells existing mutations could not allow the cancer to mutate further and escape detection by the immune system. How long have the patients been free of recurrences?
Seems promising, but having a background in DNA replication, I've seen many reports of a "cure" that didn't pan out.
Cancer treatment has come a long way but each cancer is basically a different type of disease.My godmother died from pancreatic cancer. She lasted 2.5 years after diagnosis. The doctor gave her an experimental drug that he said wouldn't cure her, but would prolong her life for a while. My dad died >30 years ago from small-cell lung carcinoma. There was no cure and survival was 5-10 % with surgery. It couldn't be operated on because of location and chemo slowed it down a few months. I am seeing ads on TVnow of Optivo and another drug that says they will prolong the life of people with this cancer.
I could have misunderstood the summary; I'm a long, long time away from college biology! As I understood the extract,the basis of this drug therapy was that the cancer had a mutation that made it hard/harder for the cancer cells' to repair altered/damaged DNA. The drug somehow facilitated damage to the cancer cells which resulted in the cancer being "cured".
I'm not sure that the extract gave the length of time that the patients have been cancer free, but I don't think that cancer survivors are ever considered "cured" the way someone would be cured of an infection. I think that the promise of this drug therapy is that it shows that the idea of attacking the DNA of cancer cells can be effective.
A friend of mine who is very well educated but is totally a non-scientific/non-technological person who generally views things through the prism of "how much it costs" was complaining recently about the billions that have been spent on cancer research without finding "a cure". I tried explaining to her that cancer isn't a single disease but a myriad of diseases with many variations even within the same type but I don't think she accepted that idea. She just saw billions of dollars going to fight "cancer" with apparently limited success rather than a very broad spectrum of success depending upon the specific type of cancer. I think that a lot of people who aren't particularly interested in science/medicine and/or have not been personally impacted by cancer (which is the case of my friend) simply don't understand that cancer isn't a single disease, so they get frustrated that it's not already "cured" despite all the resources devoted to it.
-
I read the abstract (summary) of the NEJM article, and it seems that the key was that the mutation in the cancer cells was the key because the cancer cells couldn't recover after the antibodies in the drug altered their DNA. Researchers had hypothesized that this would happen but this is the first example of the idea actually working --- and working quite spectacularly.
This is a small step, but proving that this kind of drug therapy is effective on one type of cancer opens the door to research on how this same type of therapy can be used on other kinds of cancers.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
PFF likes to pretend that it's "objective" but this list demonstrates that the group is hardly less biased than any group of knowledgeable NFL fans polled as to their choices as best coaches. Ding, ding, PFF ... winning is important, winning playoff games is more important, and winning the Super Bowl is "priceless".
Kliff Kingsbury has been HC of the Cards for 3 seasons in which his teams have gone 24-24-1 with 1 winning season, 1 playoff appearance, and 0 playoff wins. His teams have demonstrated a tendency to start off hot and then tail off as the season progresses. In 2019, the Cards started the season 3-3-1 and finished 2-7 (5-10-1). In 2020, they started 5-2 and finished 3-6 (8-8). In 2021, they started 7-0 and finished 4-6 (11-6). They got soundly beaten 34-11 by the Rams in the WC round.
How the hell can anyone claim that Kingsbury is currently the fourth best HC in the NFL behind three HCs destined for the HOF? Good grief, Kingsbury isn't even as good as two HCs in his own division, Shanahan and McVay. He's 3-3 versus the 49ers. Shanahan has taken the 49ers to the NFC Championship twice and once to the Super Bowl in the 2 seasons that he's had Garropolo as his QB for most of the season.
Kingsbury is 1-6 against McVay's Rams, including the 2021 WC loss. NFL HCs have significant influence over their team's roster, and it's disingenuous to penalize HCs who are good at talent evaluation and management because it's a key part of the job! Both Kingsbury and McVay inherited losing squads. Kingsbury got to hand pick his QB in Kyler Murray. McVay inherited Jared Goff, and made the Super Bowl with him in his second season as HC. McVay has been HC of Rams for 5 seasons in which his teams have gone 55-26 with 5 winning seasons, 4 double digit win seasons, 4 playoff appearances, 7 playoff wins in 10 games, 2 Super Bowl appearances and 1 Super Bowl win. McVay is collecting HOF credentials. Kingsbury may be job hunting in 2023 if the Cardinals suffer another second half of the season swoon.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 6/6/2022 at 11:33 AM, Irv said:
Got a shot of this guy last week.
Love pileated woodpeckers!!!
-
7 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:
Kingsbury at #4???
McDermott #18??
Both Super Bowl Coaches outside the top 10 and Zac Taylor #22??
https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-head-coach-rankings-2022-bill-belichick-andy-reid-john-harbaugh
Why is it at all surprising that PFF tells us that any number of mediocre performers are "actually" better than the guys who are top performers? It's their schtick: manipulating arcane -- and sometimes irrelevant -- statistics to "prove" that traditional methods of assessing players and coaches -- actual production/results -- don't tell the "true story". PFF regularly claim that Crappy QB A is really almost as good as All Pro QB B because A plays on a lousy team with poor coaching while B plays on a well coached team with good talent. That's why Kliff Kingsbury is rated #4 and Mike Tomlin is rated #13 in the magical and incredibly capricious statistical universe of PFF. Why is Tomlin penalized for having Roethlisberger for most of his tenure in Pittsburgh but McCarthy isn't despite having Rodgers in GB and Dak in Dallas and accomplishing less?
-
13 hours ago, MarkyMannn said:
I guess you can get pics of trains on the new bridge, but there are few trains. Bridge is strictly off limits
I only ever made it about a quarter of the way out on the old trestle bridge. I got freaked out by looking down and seeing the river below. The old trestle bridge was built in the 1800s IIRC.
-
12 hours ago, T&C said:
Nice. Used to be my other back yard BackInThe60s-70s. The Glen Iris Inn is basically a trinket shop nowadays. Always liked the Wolf creek area, good for an hour. There is a pretty cool museum but I forget exactly where that is, worth seeking out. All 3 falls are great of course, middle falls is the main one (backdrop on my phone). Are you all camping there?
The Glen Iris offers a decent restaurant in a beautiful setting (Middle Falls). You can walk to the museum from the restaurant. The Mary Jemison site (there's a monument there) marks the Jemison family home and possibly their family cemetery.
8 hours ago, Bad Things said:If you're already at Watkins Glen, be sure to stop by for a beer or food at the Seneca Lodge. It has a lot of racing history behind it, and is one of the coolest taverns I've ever been in. It's the real deal.
If you're going to Watkins Glen, you might also want to make a day of it, and take the winery trail along the east side of Seneca Lake. The Ginny Lee Cafe at the Wagner Winery is a thumbs up. Unfortunately, your boys probably won't be able to do any wine tasting but on the positive side, one can be the designated driver!
Geneva, at the north end of Seneca Lake, is a beautiful historic village. The historic district is awesome if architecture is your thing.
From Geneva, you can take Route 20 west to Cananadaigua, which is a very touristy little city with an interesting little commerical district on the city pier. Sonnenberg Gardens is a great historic home with extensive gardens on the grounds.
Ithaca and Taughannock Falls State Park on Cayuga Lake is another good side trip from Watkins Glen, especially if waterfalls and gorges are your thing. Ithaca is famous for its gorges, many on/around the Cornell University campus. Taughannock Falls is the highest waterfall in NYS. You can hike the gorge right up to the falls.
If you are going to hit a number of New York State parks on this trip or later in the year, you might consider investing in an Empire Passport which gives you unlimited free access to most state parks for a single fee. (New York State Parks info)
Here's the official Finger Lakes tourism website for more ideas: Finger Lakes Tourism
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, LeGOATski said:
What a dumb headline. Thanks, New Zealand!
Stuff headline: "US marks Memorial Day weekend with at least 11 mass shootings". If you actually read the entire news story instead of pretending it's trash, you would have noted that this story talked about the twelfth mass shooting that wasn't included in the database of mass shootings.
49 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:Yeah...with a different headline.
So you're a fan of sites that plagiarize and change the headline. Cool....
Washington Post Headline: "U.S. marks Memorial Day weekend with at least 12 mass shootings".
The WP version was published on May 31 as an update of the original article by Annabelle Timsit published on May 30. Timsit was credited in both articles so there's no plagiarism involved.
Now, to the pertinent issue, why exactly is the headline "dumb"? Since neither headline is untrue nor inflammatory, I have to believe that you think it's "dumb" because you dislike being reminded of the prevalence of gun violence in the US. I'm sure that you prefer that the mainstream US news media as well as the foreign news media kowtow to the NRA and their allies in the US media and government that pretend that gun violence is primarily a problem of inner city criminals engaging in criminal activities with illegal guns rather than a problem that can affect anybody at any time, in grocery stores, in schools, in fast food restaurant, at graduation parties, at Memorial Day events ....
-
2
-
-
52 minutes ago, PetermansRedemption said:
Uvalde spends 40% of its budget on policing. If a city of 16,000 sends 40% of their budget to their police force and only has 3 officers, that’s a gross misuse of funding.
That's not what I wrote. I wrote that the city I live in, which is about twice the size of Uvalde, sometimes only has 3 police officers on patrol -- you know, riding in their cars and available to quickly respond to crime calls. Police forces are one of those agencies that operate 24/7, so not all officers are available at any one time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there are more officers on patrol on Friday or Saturday nights than on a week day mid-morning or afternoon. Use your common sense.
-
20 hours ago, nedboy7 said:
Drug cartel crime makes much more sense to me than random school shootings.
Most police departments are absolutely in agreement for some type of gun control. But you know. NRA, money and corrupt politicians.
You know in the end none of this would happen if kids were trained in combat starting at age 4 and every kid was armed with a semi-auto for school hours.
Sounds like a plan to me ... but why limit arming school kids to just school hours? IMO, requiring every American to have combat training and to carry a semi-automatic gun whenever they leave their homes would undoubtedly make the country infinitely safer.
// sarcasm off
-
19 hours ago, aristocrat said:
Uvalde is a town of 16000 people how many cops do they even have on their force? Buffalo is a decent size city with a sizeable police force that can respond very quickly. Uvalde I imagine had to call in all off duty and surrounding areas for help. That needs to be considered
I live in a city with about 30,000 people -- almost twice the size of Uvalde -- and there are times when there are only 3 police officers on patrol in the entire city. Crime in this town -- in this entire county with a population of around 120-130k -- mostly involves drug use, drug sales, DUI, and low level property crimes like burglary, vandalism, car theft etc. I can't remember the last time any police officer in my city actually fired his/her revolver while on duty. Training in active shooter response for LEOs in places like this is very abstract because police officers have virtually no experience in dealing with active gun violence. Their experience with gun violence is almost always after the fact.
Trevor Lawrence asked to be paid in Crypto currency
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
I'm not against investing in rental real estate but it does have risks like all investments. No matter how good your property is, you cannot dismiss the reality that tenants can be problematic. They may suffer economic reverses of their own which can make formerly top rated tenants unable to pay their rent. Certainly a house fire could easily keep your house empty for months and probably cost you tens of thousands in repairs beyond whatever insurance covers. A tornado can level even the best built and maintained house or apartment building.
No investment is perfect for everyone or without risk. It's best to spread your investments among various types of investments.