sachinprism

We look at: - income over the last two years - rental & utility bill history over the last two years - evictions, foreclosures, bankruptcies, judgments, liens in the last 5 years - DTI (debt to income; their monthly debt obligations divided by their gross income) - We don't have income mins or maxs, but we can only have their housing payment to be 30% of their income, so there are incomes that would be too low for us considering that

Thank you! And if you work with us as an investor, you retain ownership of the title of the house, and your owning entity is on contracts with the buyer (recorded with the relevant county). If Hurry Home was to no longer exist, your ownership in the asset would remain, as would your relationship with the buyer. As part of our exit mechanism in this situation, we would set you up with a property management company who would earn the fee we typically would, and they would handle collection

I feel like WeWork would be one of the first companies to go under in case a recession hits the US market. Everyone who works there is probably going to decide en masse that they can do the same things from home or a Starbucks

I think VR's first breakthrough would be in boring service sector jobs. Most of us have interesting surroundings and dont want to "escape from it" but if you work in a boring service sector jobs like a call center, VR tech, even if imperfect would be an improvement over the current surrounding. Add a bit a gamification and people may actually like these jobs a bit

What are the examples of some of the other industries that thrive on this kind of asymmetric information for the buyer?

Reminded me of this article by Tyler Cowen https://www.cato-unbound.org/2015/04/06/alex-tabarrok-tyler-...

So, do you have a lie score for this experiment?

The ISPs won't do anything that would hurt their business. For example throttling, Netflix and not HBO would mean that the users who use both would prefer another service that does not throttle both.

Too much regulation means lesser competition and eventually in the long run things would deteriorate because it would be really hard to innovate.

Regulation seems like the equivalent of deciding to maintain the status quo, while if Title 2 is not imposed, there is the future possibility to make changes based on what the ISPs end up doing. The examples mentioned in the article illustrate this. I don't know why there is this idea floating around that this is the end of the internet and nothing can be reversed or changed from here-on (In fact I think that would be the case if Title 2 and associated regulations remain )

https://stratechery.com/2017/pro-neutrality-anti-title-ii/ - I think this article is a good overview of why the above individuals may be against "net-neutrality". This was an eye-opening read in a filter bubble of "pro-net-neutrality" which as it turns out used fear mongering and unverified news, as the article shows.

Pretty cool idea although I'm not fond of the execution - I think people can easily be biased or lead into favorable answers on the questions you have asked - may be the next step would be to design a Milgram experiment for tolerance?

Another aspect of this kind of social experiment or social science project is, how do you establish that you are non-partisan and non-biased? As well-intentioned as it is, there is a chance that this can be misconstrued as a propaganda that says "India is more tolerant than you think".

Love the demo you guys have made. Pretty easy way to test out the product.