It seems silly to price in thousands when you're talking about billions. Either go all the way and show billions, or show dollars. Don't try to do some halfassed compromise.
Compared to the interest only part, the savings are significant. Way more than 200 per month.
The capital repayments are not money lost in the same way that rent would be (assuming your house price doesnt plummet and you are forced to sell at that time).
So in the UK (outside London at least) at the moment there is little argument for renting, assuming you can afford the down payment.
London is a slightly different beast mind as prices have skyrocketed and down payments can be huge
No, slack free plan only allows 10000 messages to be saved at any one time. Nothing to do with user limit.
Unbelievable that a service like this would change the key part of their platform without even checking the pricing page to see what free plan restrictions were...
Except if you read the whole post, he ran into a previously undisclosed explicit user limit. The client was crashing. Slack ideally should warn you if you have too many users, before the point where the client crashes and the backend fails to send messages.
Even if they hadn't, the 10k message limit is well publicized and would have forced them into an insanely expensive pricing model.
Slack's pricing model and the ad copy of their website makes it obvious to me that it's a communication tool intended for small teams, not a chat room for thousands of users.
But who runs a chat with 5000+ users? The signal to noise would be insane. If each user posted 1 message per hour, that's 5000 messages per hour. For a group that size it seems like Twitter makes more sense. I can't imagine 5000 people needing real time communication. Kind of the mother of all edge cases for a team chat service.
I don't think they are talking about 5000 users chatting in one chat room, but about 5000+ users having a common place to talk to others in small groups and maybe read announcements in a main channel.
My university uses Slack, and the "main" rooms see a few posts a day, but there are tons of small groupchats and DMs.
It's usually 50-200 users online at a time, and out of that maybe 20-50 are chatting at least once a minute, so no, not 9000 users actively chatting at once.
There's plenty of IRC servers (which is probably the closest analogue to Slack) with more than 5000+ users. Sure, most of them have a #general channel, but nobody will see that one as the main channel; most will go to a more topical / relevant channel. That's how IRC works, that's how Slack should work.
The 10,000 message search limit probably limits this realistically to 5 or 10 person teams. I would think I would want at least a week or even a month's worth of searching (ideally indefinitely, of course).
It's very different to owning shares in a company. You have to either buy a house or rent. You cant opt out entirely, whereas you can with shares.
By choosing to rent, you are betting on the housing market being stagnant or falling, if house prices shoot up and you opted to rent, you will need to now pay higher rents or a bigger mortgage.
So there is risk in renting too
If you decided to rent in london instead of buying 3 years ago, you'd be tens of thousands down
If house prices cross a threshold where first time buyers can't afford to get onto the property ladder, they're forced to rent - driving up competition for stock & thus rental prices. (This appears to be affecting more & more people in the UK).
These people pulling the ladder up behind them might be in for a rude surprise.
A sketch of my argument: as we are sometimes reminded to bear in mind, prices are driven by market conditions and affordability, not costs. If prices shoot up, why will the rent increase? Is it not already set to the highest value the market can bear, or something very close to that? We'll assume it must be, because it would be silly to do anything else (and the tenancy market is liquid enough). But then, if prices are at the right level already, how will people pay for increased rent?
If salaries increase as well, then this is just ordinary inflation. House prices go up, rents have go up, salaries go up - well, people have been warning about this for years! On the other hand, if prices increase, and rents go up, and salaries don't, how are people going to be able to afford to pay for any of this? The obvious answer, of course, is that they won't.
Prices are what the market will bear. If everybody's costs go up, or supply is limited, then rent can sure go up. Renting is an inflexible demand - unless you want to go homeless.
> True, but then that is not what he said, you conveniently reworded it ;)
I reworded it for generality, but specifically, "You can't trust anybody except open source repositories" does not imply "You can trust all open source repositories" in exactly the same way as, in more general terms, "You can't trust anybody outside of group X" does not imply "You can trust everybody inside of group X".
Also the income statement says: All numbers in thousands
So you need to add 000 to the end of those numbers