"worth" can have two meanings in this context. $100 from 1917 can be worth exactly $100 today. Or it can be worth what you can buy with it.
Some folks will see a $100 bill from the era and see an old $100 bill. Some folks will imagine what that $100 took to save back then, and what it bought.
FWIW my brain automatically went with "the goods that can be bought with $100" - such as what I could buy in a grocery store today with $100 would be about what I could buy with $3 back then.
I never considered the other reading until this thread. It was obvious to me the author meant "you can buy 97% less stuff today with the same $100".
I think it's used to convey that the buying power has been reduced. If you have a $100 basket of goods (as measured in 1914 dollars), $100 in 1914 allows you to buy 1 basket of goods. Due to the devaluation, today spending $100 would only give you a $3.05 basket of goods (as measured in 1914 dollars).
It's a bit of an odd comparison since you're using two different units for dollars to compare the basket vs purchasing dollar. The clearer way to say it is that today's $100 basket of goods is equivalent to $3.95 basket of goods of 1914.
The US built stuff though. Not even that long ago.
Subway systems don’t take all that much land from private parties and are effectively too expensive to build here. Not to mention how long they take.
It’s because we decided it must be this way. If we decided (as a society) building stuff was important we could do so. It will take an existential crises for this attitude to shift though.
When you propose building quite literally anything here you will have people saying “no” crawling out of the woodwork. We decided to empower such people both legally and socially.
Los Angeles is building a ton of new subway systems ( I think maybe more than anywhere else in the US ) where it is far from easy. If LA Metro can pull it off then so can elsewhere!
Long-distance passenger rail isn't something we (as a society) want. So it doesn't get built. We still build highways for cars. We still build commuter rail, where population density supports it.
AppleCare is leaps and bounds better than any other insurance you can buy for mobile or laptops.
For accessories I don’t see the point, those are effectively disposable wear items.
Ironically a large part of deciding to migrate to an iPhone from android was final frustrations with even Google purchased devices under warranty coupled with hardware quality requiring repairs. My wife’s experience with AppleCare won me over.
If nothing else it’s first party insurance. I will never purchase device insurance offered via a third party ever again. Either its first party so I’m dealing with the place I bought it or nothing at all.
Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
Unless for some reason you know you will be breaking your device much more than the average person.
Insurance is for things that are unlikely to ever happen but would financially ruin you if they did.
Definitely agreed, to a point. Phones I used to break so often it seemed worth it, although a lot seemingly had to do with device quality vs. me being especially clumsy. My iPhone has been dropped, dunked in the bath, etc. just as much as my past Pixels but is going on 3 years now. I never made it a year previously.
My laptop I'm on the fence about. It's a $3,000 machine that isn't especially robust if dropped, but I haven't broken one in a decade or two. Probably won't pick it up on the next one I buy. The unrepairability of modern Macbooks is what got me to buy it in the first place though. An old Thinkpad I could self-insure for quite cheap because I had the ability to replace any component failure myself. Not so true on the Macbook. I also see it as travel insurance - I can walk into any Apple store in a major city and in theory get a replacement device on the spot. Of course that theory has yet to be strongly tested.
As a longtime iPad Pro (large) user that always gets the AppleCare, I have walked out of the store with a brand new device a half-dozen times with only a few questions asked.
>Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
"Peace of mind" is not free.
Paying ~ten bucks a month to insure my phone and not have to worry about it getting damaged is worth it to me, even if I could afford to replace it if I broke it; because now I just _don't worry about it_.
Why would you worry about it if you can afford to replace it?
If you say you worry about the cost, shouldn't you worry even more about the higher cost of the insurance? Sure, for one item the variance is higher if you are uninsured, but if you have several such items, variance goes down, and you are saving all the more money.
Because even though I can afford to buy/repair a new phone if I break mine; it still _feels_ terrible to have to spend 500+ bucks because I was a dumbass.
I literally toss my phone to my couch or my bed from across the room dozens of times a week without worrying about misjudging the throw (which happens more than I’d like to admit), toss is on the ground at the gym, have no problems taking long baths with it, washing it under the sink if it gets dirty, and do dozens of things I would not do if I had to pay a full price if I ended up actually breaking it.
Having AC+, lets me treat the device with the level of carelessness that is worth the price to me.
Math-wise with how durable recent flagship devices are, you are probably correct that I’d be better off financially to just accept that I will break a phone every couple of years and just eat the cost.
But psychologically, I’m happier paying ~120bucks a year, than $500 in repair fees once in a while.
Yes, the argument is that the entity providing the insurance is surely earning more income that they are paying out since in addition to payouts, they also have overhead costs and must be profitable. Said another way, their customers are paying more than they receive, on average. That's a mathematical and economical certainty.
You are right that it might still feel better to you to pay regularly instead. That's subjective.
Knowing that you will likely end up paying less in the long term if you don't pay the insurance might help getting over that feeling, but that's a personal choice in the end.
It's bordering on insurance fraud and I usually trade-in my devices back to Apple so I don't bother with it; but there's probably at least one case where both you and Apple come out ahead financially.
AC+ includes what they call "Express Replacement Service", where you will send you an entirely new device as part of your claim, and they'll reuse your old one for parts.
If you _just happen_ to accidentally fall with your phone in hand right after the new ones come out, the delta in price between "a scuffed up, used 1-year old phone" and "brand new refurbished device from Apple" is higher than the price of the insurance and incidental damage fees.
The peace of mind I have is that the $1000 for a new phone is sitting in my bank account. If I break my phone, I can get it replaced, and if I don't, I get to keep the money. While buying Apple care is ensuring you lose since you pay for a new phone whether you break it or not.
>Insurance for things you can afford to replace never makes sense anyway. The expected cost of insurance will always exceed the expected cost of replacement in the long run.
Not sure about Applecare but Lenovo has support packages where if your thinkpad breaks they'll send a technician over to your place to fix it within 24 hours. That's definitely worth it for a work device IMO.
I bought this kind of insurance for my PhD (Dell laptop, same 24 hours technician on site guarantee). Although quite expensive, I don't regret it: my screen and motherboard got replaced about two years in.
This is currently called natural gas. You store it in the ground, and in "day tanks" on land connected to pipes.
Nuclear can also be seen in the same way in relation to renewables.
Batteries are currently much further than I ever thought possible, but still nowhere close to being cost effective enough for most areas.
If you forced every solar or wind installation to have at least 48 hours of nameplate capacity in storage, you would get closer to the true cost of deploying renewables. Right now there is a whole lot of cherry picking going on, where investors are taking the profitable easy stuff, collecting subsidies, and then making the hard expensive stuff someone else's problem.
Right now battery deployments cover the few hour duck curve at best, because that's the only profitable way to deploy them. Hopefully the trend continues though!
I have a feeling we would all be terrified if we knew how much AI had a role in building bridges at the moment.
TBD if they stay up, I suppose.
The stories I hear from various white collar professions not related to tech are... interesting, to say the least. There is a whole lot of unsanctioned shadow IT going on regardless of policy.
> Basically, it's just another thing to factor in when planning my day. No more of a hassle than checking the weather forecast or glancing at my calendar.
Sounds like an incredible hassle at a level I would pay hundreds of dollars per month to avoid. That sort of mental overhead is crazy to me. But I'm also someone who finds having a single event on my calendar for the day disrupts my productivity and mental peace to an absurd level.
Time of day billing is definitely the future for renewables though, once they hit a saturation point for the grid it's the only thing that makes any sort of sense. Perhaps residential is the last place it needs to happen, but eventually it will be the norm. I see it working more in an automated fashion though. Smart load centers (panels), smart appliances, etc. that are connected to the local power company's API. Then you set some rules around it.
Stuff like cooking dinner though? I cannot imagine planning my day around saving a couple bucks. That's just insane to me. Energy use and all this mechanization/automation/technology exists to make life more convenient in the first place! Stuff like EV charging, raising/lowering temps in anticipation of power pricing, laundry (dryer) scheduling, etc. seems to be where 80% of the wins can be made, and are all much more automatable to avoid having to think about it. That last 20% can simply be taken up by whole-home battery storage, which by the time any of this happens at scale will be pretty much the norm.
The thing that concerns me most though are regional "seasonal" events where a once-a-decade lul in energy production happens and there is simply not enough dispatchable power on the grid to meet demand due to everyone hyper-optimizing their loads in such a fashion.
I've been on the tariff for 2 years now, at first I was looking at the prices every day, but over time you get used to how it works and the price watching starts to tail off. The rule of thumb is just to avoid high load stuff during the peak window (load shift) - sticking to those principles you generally come out of on top. Playing the averages is the key.
Nowadays I don't really look at the prices that much other than when it's windy as I might be tempted to charge the car.
That being said though, if current world events continue and the energy situation degrades further - causing my average unit rate to start creeping up, I might consider getting a home battery , solar etc to compensate, or leave the tariff entirely.
Yeah, it's definitely a bit of a game for me, and my electricity bill was already low enough that the savings are trivial.
But I'm the sort of person who enjoys being flexible when planning my day. I'll fit chores such as laundry around work meetings. Decide whether to go for a lunchtime run (and thus have an extra shower) based on the weather and having an a big enough gap in my day. Buy ingredients for dinner based on the weather and how I'm feeling. Expected energy cost is just another factor in the mix - and one that only rarely becomes decisive.
The closest the UK grid has ever come to not being able to cover demand was a few years ago when most of our nuclear fleet went offline at the same time in the middle of a January cold snap due to the discovery of a potential maintenance problem in the steam plant. If there were to be a repeat of that scenario, then the spread of domestic dynamic pricing would actually help matters by driving load shifting behaviour.
The intended effect is to feel good about oneself, so I’m sure it’s working fine.
What this tends to largely accomplish is ensure that those who come from non-traditional backgrounds are further locked out of mainstream high-end tech jobs. If you grew up in a rough area with shitty parents, didn’t go to college, and came into the industry entirely self-taught there aren’t that may decently paying jobs in the field willing to hire you. The “vice industries” are some of the few typically willing to take a chance, while also allowing such a person to level up on relevant cutting edge tech. It’s generally that or working for a small company on 25 year old IT gear and often getting pigeon holed in those (low paying) roles.
And I’m not even saying that it justifies working for such places to many. That’s a personal choice of course. Just saying that it’s mostly a class signal vs moral one.
Sounds alright until you realize after spilling a bunch of flower vases in the trunk (hatchback) that the computer has literally no case on it and immediately shorts out while driving. Or a passenger spills a drink in the rear seat cup holder.
There is now a recall notice to pull the back seat out to install a $5 plastic cover over the thing.
And yep, it’s the main computer for the car which controls the electronic transmission etc. Immediate full on engine-shuts-off at speed on the freeway and you require a flatbed to tow it away level of broken. I’m sure the engine ECU is in the engine bay, but holy hell what a surprise!
I had a car with an all wheel drive computer in a similar spot in the late 2000s.
I had a small crack in the rubber seal around my sunroof from parking outside in the elements. When it rained, water seeped in, made its way down the a-pillar, pooled under the seat, and fried the computer.
Expensive fix but I was able to drive it to the shop.
Just install the damn game, ask if you want icons on the desktop as well as in the start menu.
OS handles it all for you.
Perhaps some multiplayer functionality and such makes sense to share cross-game, but I miss the bad old days of every game having a bunch of privately maintained servers and its own server browser list etc. You could eventually find a few servers that fit your playstyle and make online gamer friends that way.
The only benefit steam brings to the table as far as I can tell is making it easy to reinstall your library on a fresh PC.
Yea, that's another way games are terrible today. I don't want a launcher for my game. My OS is my launcher. I don't want a launcher, I don't want a store, I don't want a "helper," I don't want a tray icon, I don't want an updater. Why can't game companies just ship their game and that's it?
It used to be that there was always a supervising controller on duty, who kind of rotated around each active controller, acted as backup for breaks, etc. for this class of airport - from my layman reading at least. This still seems to be the paper requirement.
So the minimum here would be 3 controllers given that nights setup. One for approach/ground, one for departure. Obviously you can argue more would be appropriate to segregate duties further, but it was a night shift headed into airport shutdown.
There seems to have been two working. The supervising controller double booked as a primary controller for departure at the time of incident. The fact the incident controller wasn’t immediately relieved of duty and had to spend 30 minutes shutting the airport down himself seems to match this explanation.
From what I’ve read on the matter for this tower not having a supervising controller was rather normalized - which is outside of SOP and something you need to report to management every time it happens. For this incident there was one - but sounds like one in name only. Once normalization of deviance happens, working in a way where two controllers that on paper should be sharing duties - but in practice are splitting them - seems exactly how I’d expect things to go.
But this is all speculation at this point of course. NTSB report will be interesting.
Either way - it has been clear for decades ATC needs both a massive surge in the staffing pipeline as well as a legitimate modernization program competently implemented. It’s certainly not a problem that started or remained in any single administration. Even if one or another had been worse, others sure as hell haven’t done much at all to fix the situation.
Some folks will see a $100 bill from the era and see an old $100 bill. Some folks will imagine what that $100 took to save back then, and what it bought.
FWIW my brain automatically went with "the goods that can be bought with $100" - such as what I could buy in a grocery store today with $100 would be about what I could buy with $3 back then.
I never considered the other reading until this thread. It was obvious to me the author meant "you can buy 97% less stuff today with the same $100".
reply