styrophone
The OP is using him or herself as an example of a real behavior in response to real economic incentives, no matter how unsympathetic you find their circumstance. The fact that this situation discourages moves that most other markets encourage is a worthwhile point to bring up. Among other things, it reduces supply which has a profound effect on new buyers.
Incentives influence actions much more than personal criticism does. The OP’s relatively fortunate outcome does not mean that they don’t have something relevant to share. In contrast, targeting them with pejorative shaming is totally unhelpful.
That's decidedly untrue. In many markets you can make the case that conservative assumptions result in a cheaper buy option. However, the Bay Area in particular throws that calculus in reverse for many neighborhoods and property types.
Your argument seems to rely on the premise that buying is monteraily cheaper in the long run as long as you're willing to put in nominal sweat equity and risk. And that labor buys you some sort of citizenship that money, for the same amount of tenure, does not. The Bay Area market does not reward that puritanical ethic.
[0] https://web.stanford.edu/group/dlab/media/papers/Zhang%20Nat...
From the point of view of a prospective homebuyer, at first this seems attractive as an avenue toward mortgage reduction. However, as you point out, it's hard to identify where this service adds any value to the asset. I fear that it ultimately results in another large pool of money pumping up the demand side at the expense of new buyers.
I don't think we have any reason to believe that this is an unearned luxury lavished on a lucky elderly couple. It appears more likely that this is their own money, saved and invested over their lifetime, and their's to spend how they wish. Furthermore, advanced age is no reason to cast someone off to a bland waiting room. It's not healthy for a society to consider somebody's value limited to their future contribution potential. I'm happy to contribute economically to present-day's elderly folks, not only for my own attachment to someone, but for the social contract that I, too, will be old, and I doubt I'll suddenly just want to stand in the corner.
I've spent a few years doing that. While I can see how the image might appear to folks who haven't been in that field, it's a bit hyperbolic to to think of it as a soul-bending meat grinder. Conducting an animal study in a reputable institution is regulated by an ethics committee with the purpose of scrutinizing scientific motivation and the care of animals. When you're clear on the purpose, methods, and minimum animal requirements, it isn't butchery. Furthermore, keeping the animals comfortable (through medication and other means) doesn't just serve to make the researcher feel good; it also eases stress on the animals, which otherwise can confound medical data. In short, it's a sophisticated professional endeavor, and the science gets more mindshare than the visceral unpleasantness of performing surgery on an animal. It has also been my experience that most people without experience in animal research can be quite surprised by the degree of similarity between animal care and use committees and human subject research review boards. Animal researchers can have a fairly high bar to clear to justify the use of vertebrate animals.
Unless the rental unit is a standalone single family home (and sometimes even then), economies of scale in maintenance and upkeep result in those costs being cheaper to a landlord.
Downpayments required for loans with good terms have opportunity cost to the buyer. On average over the long term, it has been appropriate to assign that downpayment a discount rate which is a net negative against average market returns.
If realestate markets are stable or reasonably increasing, mortgages are safe. But renting reduces risk of being stuck in an upside down loan, and risk reduction has value.
Despite all of these factors, you're right that rent includes profit, so in many cases it's wiser to purchase. But it's not as globally true as the parent comment suggests. The best choice comes from a balanced assessment of a variety of factors.
From what you're gathering, do you imagine an eventuality in which a medical device can take a form factor similar to these popular consumer choices and provide a signal of diagnostic quality? Or do you think PPG-style sensing is limited to a fundamental degree of uncertainty with respect to arrhythmias?
"Plant" is a legacy term referring to the device or system acting on the state you're trying to control. Sticking with thermostats, the plant is the heating element.
A straightforward way to think of hysteresis is that the output depends on the history of the input. A simple example of hysteresis in a temperature controller would be to turn off heat if the temperature rises above threshold A, but only turn on heat if the temperature falls below threshold B.
"These controllers may be realized in terms of any element that provides hysteresis" -- This is indeed awkward phrasing, since it could be read as though the property of hysteresis is fundamental to create a bang-bang controller. In fact, using hysteresis is "just" a best practice. Strictly speaking, you could make a hot water heater that turns heat on and off based on a single hard temperature threshold as measured by a thermometer, and it would work. However, any noise in the system will make the output jittery and cause unnecessary cycles. Having a "heat off" threshold higher than the "heat on" threshold makes for smoother transitions.