Yes, I’m rather disappointed in the ‘better of two options’ that was chosen. I just wish we could get away from first passed the post. Maybe one day.

I’m glad to hear this. Yet another reason to relocate.

Despite the name, it’s nice this isn’t a physical pass that some people will never hear about and still end up paying full pop at these places. Everyone that’s eligible will benefit. That’s great.

But won’t always be if we aren’t vigilant.

The study also shows a noticeable if difficult to measure reduction in number of entangled animals which is great.

When I was young, the grocers tossed the cardboard boxes from deliveries up by the registers for people to use. These days, I have to ask a worker for one as they’re restocking. This practice should return. It would reduce more waste than replacing single use bags with another plastic based bag alternative.

Too bad burgers outpaced inflation then. It’d be nice to have a $1.50 option commonly available.

I agree about everything in your first point. I hadn’t previously considered that the novelty of a new technology would necessarily increase have disproportionately high initial cost.

That said, I feel like any calculation of cost against how many hours played is entirely subjective. Your suggestion of $0.75 / entertainment hour is quite different than what I consider ideal. Games will vary genre to genre, person to person, platform to platform.

A person with limited time might exclusively play shorter titles, or maybe just multiplayer titles. A person with significant free time might spent hundreds of hours replaying an RPG.

To be incredibly broad, I would say that games shouldn’t cost more per entertainment hour than half of what any given person earns at their job - but even that is quite subjective and should be taken with salt.

You make a good point, and I agree. I wasn’t thinking that it was the only thing on the market and therefore the price is whatever a new technology costs.

I tend to think of video games - being a form of entertainment - as a great way to be entertained while also being an incredibly low cost option for the amount of time I spend enjoying them.

Buying a $600 console just to enjoy a single $60 title is an extreme example but to me, if that game provides 100 hours of playtime, that seems well worth it. Cheaper than going to a theatre or most other forms of entertainment.

To be sure, I don’t do this, but I’ve always viewed gaming through a $/h lens, and could never understand why so many people saw it as a waste of time. That’s what I was thinking when I wrote that comment earlier - it seems to me that you get more playtime with some RPG from this decade than you would playing Pac-Man. Though perhaps I feel that way because games like Pac-Man don’t appeal to me.

Thinking about it, your point might be valid again, with the Atari being a new technology, people were likely to sink far more hours into a title than they might do with modern games since we have so many to choose from now. I’ve never thought about it that way. Thanks for pointing this out.

The Atari 2600 released for $190 in 1977. Or about $1000 today.

The best selling title, Pac-Man released for $28 in 1982. Or about $95 today.

Compared to so much else that has risen dramatically over time, vastly outpacing video games comparatively, I think it’s a bit hard to argue with the value proposition of modern titles.

I like the Telo, though it is about twice the price of the Slate.

A bacon egg vehicle?

That comment is a bad take to be sure, but it isn’t really about eliminating every vehicle in existence. We’d still need individual vehicles to serve for delivery and emergency services, as well as a bunch of other stuff.

The main thought is just that it’s a bit silly to have half the population driving a two tonne vehicle to the grocery store. There’s already communities where golf carts are used instead of cars.

The whole concept of ripping out every road and installing solar tramways is just as much a nonsensical extreme not worth taking seriously as ‘what do I do if I order a computer and I work from home’. I get your use of the example though, it is the equivalent counterpoint.

Professor Santiago Gallino specializing in retail management was interviewed last year by NPR for a piece about these tags.

While the labels give retailers the ability to increase prices suddenly, Gallino doubts companies like Walmart will take advantage of the technology in that way.

“To be honest, I don’t think that’s the underlying main driver of this,” Gallino said. “These are companies that tend to have a long-term relationship with their customers and I think the risk of frustrating them could be too risky, so I would be surprised if they try to do that.”

Rather than seeing an opportunity to use surge pricing, Gallino says retailers are likely drawn to electronic shelf tags to ensure consistency between online and in-store pricing.

What a prophet.

I still have installed a dozen or so clients, so I opened Voyager to remind myself what it is in comparison to Jerboa, which is also my preferred client.

Suddenly my android device has an iOS user interface. To me, this is lazy development. I’m sure it’s fine for someone accustomed to it, but even having a static header and footer seem out of date.

I’ll stick with Jerboa for the time being.

Right - I wouldn’t benefit from such a thing either. The market exists in China probably due to the density of people living in apartment buildings without access to home based charging.

Battery swapping is common practice in China. Far as I know, these swaps aren’t for huge capacity batteries, and moreso designed for smaller ones. Takes about as long as filling a sedan tank with fuel. We could have this technology, but there’s not really a push for it.

I’m all aboard Spotify alternatives, but this post is an echo chamber of people that are far more likely to know “the difference”. We aren’t representative of Spotify’s customer base.

Most people listening to music probably wouldn’t be able tell the difference from cutting the quality down by double digit percentages. This is exemplified by the number of people using wireless headphones.

Spotify certainly could offer service on par with Tidal and similar, but being beholden to shareholders that only look at the bottom line and never the quality of the service, that executive might not be right, but they’re not exactly wrong.

Funny how a mistake in a single sentence earns vitriol on the entire comment.

Despite what I’d mistakenly wrote, I meant that to overcome inflation and see a return of double to quadruple your investment - which is what the comment starting this thread suggests as the outcome - you’d have to beat the market by around 10%.

Regardless, my point was more to do with whether someone with only $50 to spare a month is truly in a position to invest in anything or whether they might be better off saving it for a rainy day or something like that.

If someone has a few dollars to spare come month’s end, but has found themselves skipping the odd meal, that money would probably be better spent on a small grocery trip than putting it into an ETF that’ll take years to turn a profit.

Taking a step further, if the last thirty five years are any indication, that future $21k would be worth less than today’s $10k.

Besides, to overcome inflation, you’d need to average double digit returns on your investment every year for half a lifetime.

Like you say, it’s a tough decision if there’s anything that can provide you value now. Not to argue against savings, but expecting it to grow exponentially with no effort is folly.

Can’t have those gays in the military, after all.