Because it is. Who wants to pay $120 a month on streaming services you barely use?

No joke, I’ve had two Keurig machines break on me in the past year. Those machines are trash, built to break. After the second one, I just bought a $10 coffee pot, and it’s working great. It’s probably going to last me ten years. There’s barely any parts to break.

Windows Subsystem for Linux

That’s not who I wanted to see dead at 74.

Based on my experience with how destructive a robot vacuum can be, there is 0% chance I would let a Tesla developed robot exist in my house.

Meanwhile, Tesla is showing off pretend robots to serve drinks to Elon stans. Don’t look behind the curtain.

Because Republicans don’t want you to vote if you have the kind of job that you can’t just take whatever time you want off.

Their sales figures seem to show that the majority of people don’t care. For my needs when I’m using my MacBook, I’m one of those people who don’t care. That’s probably because it’s not my main PC, so I use it for the things most people probably use it for (browsing, watching media, some light work).

So, more bad products no one wants. Cool. Great.

Yeah, that’s fine. That would be a very manual process, whereas Port87 makes the process automatic. But, yeah, you get most of what Port87 offers that way, you just have to pay for it.

If you want a usable mail for all your accounts that is also spam resistant, may I recommend https://port87.com

Another reason to avoid kindle like the plague.

I feel personally attacked.

Oh man, fuck Bryan Lunduke. He aged like milk.

Throw those socks out, bro.

If I did know, I wouldn’t need to consult them. Though, I’d imagine they use a similar technique to how I would appraise the value of a gaming PC, not that I’m an expert on consumer hardware pricing, but I’m fairly knowledgeable. But I would use historical data, performance metrics (although this wouldn’t apply to retro games), market conditions, conditions of the parts, and a certain amount of speculation.

The reason I’d look for a consensus is to account for outliers. If one expert is using some metric that causes them to over or under value a game, I’m less likely to get ripped off by having multiple expert opinions forming a consensus than if I relied on just that one expert’s opinion.

I mean, yeah, kind of. The market is an indicator of value, but it can be wrong for a number of reasons (false scarcity, price fixing, monopolistic pricing, speculative investments, etc). Earlier you asked me how I would determine value, and I told you “consensus”. The market is a form of consensus, but not the only form. If I’m unsure whether the market is correctly valuing something, I’d try to get an expert consensus. For example, that’s actually what I do when I’m trying to buy a rare video game, because that market is volatile as fuck, and isn’t a reliable indicator of value.

Ok, let me see if I can clear up the confusion. It is incredibly difficult to determine if something like the housing market is overvalued. Professional economists disagree with each other about that, and I am not a professional economist. I’m not even an amateur economist. You can ask me all you want, but I’m not going to take a stand on it, because I simply don’t know. Whether you will accept “maybe” as an answer is really up to you.

I also don’t know why houses are priced where they are. I know of a few of the factors, like how regulations have made it harder to build affordable housing, and, surprisingly, harder to build luxury housing even. Whatever the factors are that are affecting this market seems to have priced out most people. We can agree on that. Why that is (and whether homes are properly valued or overvalued) is what we can’t agree on, because again, I just don’t know.

Do you see how I said “That may be a case of something being overvalued. That can especially happen when there is artificially limited supply.”

At no point did I say, “That is a case of something being overvalued.”

Again, I never claimed they were overvalued. I do not know if they are overvalued. There are plenty of reasons the market can sustain things being overvalued though, like false scarcity or price fixing. If your definition of value means markets suffering from these practices are actually increasing value, then our definitions of value differ. So if that’s the case, I don’t think this argument is going to go anywhere.