Not to mention that some of the cracks are incredibly lightweight in the first place so even disabling a small amount of their code would improve things. Removing the encryption mechanisms alone works wonders.

And yet they’re much smaller than most of the Ford trucks out there.

They do get cheaper but the cheaper ones don’t get made because they aren’t worth anything anymore. Like sure you can get a 500GB HDD which used to be a moderately priced option and is now basically trash or free. The prices go down, but the key is that consumers no longer want the old thing either.

It looks like it depends on the drive size but also I think the pandemic has leveled this out in recent years. Some additional data I found by BackBlaze shows a bit more of the story though they have changed their drive sizes which leads to a more interesting graph.

Interpreted the other way, I don’t think that makes sense because on the whole storage has always gotten cheaper with time. Hard drives may cost the same, but they’re larger capacity so really this would only work as an argument if hard drive storage space stayed the same and prices remained the same for consumers but went down for manufacturers.

Also there’s a lot of competition in the space similar to other chips so I don’t see how a company making NAND or platters can afford to sit on their hands like that. The whole point of drive innovation right now is to drive the price per GB down for B2B sales. And that usually translates well to consumer sales too.

Not at all. The price of storage has plummeted so much that most video games comfortably use ~100GB for large games and don’t care because even SSD storage is extremely cheap.

If you don’t believe me, here’s a post on Reddit that shows it off pretty well.

But I don’t have a Brazilian dollars :(

I think that it’s for this reason that a folding phone will be better as an iPhone mini or regular model and not a folding ultra. In fact, I don’t know that they’ll bother with calling it anything. It would just be the iPhone fold for 1st gen and it’d probably be in an in between size of pro and regular.

To clarify, I was thinking of the depreciating asset part as a loss of value the same way that a subscription is.

What is completely wild to me is that there are only 4 main apps: Reddit, twitter, instagram, and Facebook. Almost every public conversation happens on one of those platforms. And of those four platforms, one of them was bought by one singular person. Some people just don’t get the absolute scale of how much one person can just buy of our communities.

Like it or not, there are businesses on Twitter. Celebrities are easy to reach and talk to. Even companies use Twitter for support. News outlets post there. It’s a whole community. Was it a bit toxic? Yeah. But it wouldn’t have mattered. One guy bought it.

Similar to what you said, if you were to run the numbers on this I’m pretty sure owning twitter to Elon is not much different than owning a cable subscription to your average family. A whole community of tens of millions of people bought by one person and its success doesn’t matter. Capitalism is broken. And if you think that’s bad, imagine how he can affect your government when a Supreme Court justice goes for a small small fraction of the price…

Edit: I did the math and it turns out that twitter has lost so much money that this is no longer a cable subscription. It’s about a 6% yearly loss to Elons net worth, dependent on his current stock values. Which means it’s not cable, but about the cost the average person spends on food in a year ($10,000 yearly cost to a 200k net worth). Still insane.

Pretty sure he was already warm because invading Poland was so not cool.

Hello. (Am I doing this right?)

I agree. But that’s a subjective stance obviously. I think since Minecraft was priced appropriately for its current value, there was no need to consider future value increasing. And on that basis they could have sold the game for more and chose not to. Still the point is that even if most people didn’t consider it, it incentivizes early purchases. If it were priced at the 1.0 build price at alpha launch, only die hard supporters would have bought it. Everyone else would wait. Same thing here.

You’ve just showed me why my point works. If you buy in now, your early purchase of Minecraft becomes more valuable over time as stuff is added. Therefore, buying now is better than buying later.

Whereas with his app, it’s overpriced now and will add features until that value proposition is met for more people. That discourages you from buying it and there’s no reason to buy it. Especially since it’s a subscription.

Now could he have done the Minecraft model? Yes. And since it’s a subscription, the price can go up slowly with no benefit to early adopters. I think the main reason he didn’t do that is because changing pricing this way generally doesn’t go well.

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. You have to ask yourself a question: is offering an expensive upfront subscription for an evolving product an endorsement of assessing future value into your purchase. In my view, it isn’t and it’s not what he’s saying.

What he is saying is that to the minority who will find this a good value or who are okay donating to help them implement new features, go ahead and hit that button. Then separately he’s saying “the price will make more sense to more people as features are added” which is true but is not an endorsement of paying the current price for those promised features. At least from what’s in the article and what I’ve seen.

It’s the difference between saying that you should buy Minecraft because it will become an awesome game one day versus saying you should buy Minecraft because it’s either worth it to you now or you’re okay with helping to fund the development of future features you’ll receive. Those are very different.

What the EU actually needs to do is to spearhead and help find everyone a way to actually “own” digital things. I think I’d be fine with not having a disk drive if I could buy my game, not be reliant on servers to download it in the future, trade my games with friends, and choose to sell it when I felt like it.

We need to find a way to get back (most of) the benefits of physical media without actually having to go back to it.

When we talk water consumption in regard to bathroom facilities, you might get into the weeds a little bit. In most modern countries, water from waste facilities is not “wasted” and is instead treated and returned to reservoirs or rivers. Upon being returned, the contaminants are diluted by the natural water source and then are eaten and processed by organisms that will rebalance things. And many areas in the US draw from aquifers that are replenished by adding this water back into the ground which takes years and further filters the water.

The reason evaporation is a problem is because we don’t have to consider those complicated factors when the water is returned to the air. It is purely wasted in the sense that it will be dispersed in the air and we have no control over where it goes after that. If you have an abundance of water and your aquifer is at equilibrium, no problem. But if you’re in a desert and having to desalinate water from an ocean to fill your water park, that’s a big issue. Basically it’s hard to know exactly how bad this park would be without context of its resource systems.

Please don’t make me do the piss math

I wouldn’t say that the water loss is tiny. I’m assuming average temperatures between 90-100° F when operating and low humidity (<30%) and I found a source saying that the city of pheonix estimated that an Olympic swimming pool loses 2500-5000 gallons of water per month. That has mostly to do with surface area but I’m assuming they have at least one of those pools in the park, maybe multiple. Could be up to 15,000 gallons/month just for pools alone.

Then we talk about the water slides which, if you’ve ever been on a water slide, you know that they waste water. Water leaking from the slides may be gallons an hour and the agitation of the water will speed up evaporation. I’d say each slide loses somewhere around 10-20 gallons an hour as a guess. You multiply that by 15 slides and you’re getting 150 gallons per hour, 12,000 gallons a day.

So not to put it lightly but this one park could be losing over a million gallons of water a year. Easily. And in a desert that’s nothing to scoff at.

I did all my math before researching but I found an article from the guardian that uses very similar numbers. Mine are higher but this park is also bigger.

Yeah this is what I mean. I don’t get why people who don’t like their content bother hating them. You don’t like that they mostly exist for entertainment, cool, why bother caring? If you want deep tech dives or something else, there’s plenty of content out there. You’re upset they aren’t more knowledgeable as if everyone making tech content needs to know everything.

And yeah I did feel like they messed up with the Billet incident and it was one of the more important things they needed to address properly. They made a mistake and I do think that Linus handled it poorly to say the least. They deserved that part of the scandal. All I’ll say is I’m willing to wait and see if they improve or if they make similar mistakes. If that’s a big deal to you, I get that, but that’s not where a majority of the hate is coming from either. It’s coming from what I said before about tech people wanting different content