MystikIncarnate

I don't understand why anyone thought either candidate would handle it better than the other.

IMO, the Trump administration will likely make the problem worse faster than Harris would have, but regardless of who won the election, it would be impossible to prove whether my argument is true or not, so I digress.

I still have a hard time believing that anyone chose this hill to be the deciding factor and they went with Trump?

He's basically endorsing mass deportation which will likely result in the deaths of many migrants fleeing from dangerous situations. It's basically genocide on a massive scale. And that standpoint convinced anyone that he would do a better job in the Palestine conflict compared to Harris?

Now, I'm not saying Harris would have done much better, but "not much better" is still better... Not by much, but it's still better.

Oh well. Here we go again, the US is endorsing genocide. Whoopee.

It would probably be funny if it wasn't true and a fucking tragedy.

I'm so goddamned irrationally mad at everything.

Indeed. I have absolutely no way of knowing anything for certain.

I'm just screaming into the void from this hellscape we call Earth.

Thank you for leaving the explanation in, I'm not versed in what horrors await the US populous with project 2025 for two main reasons:

1. I'm not American
2. I like being happy sometimes

So this fills in a gap for me, and at the same time makes me sad and angry about how many people voted for this garbage.

Either way, I appreciate you. Have a good day.

See? This. This is why I don't trust my safety to electronic systems. The fancy computer controlled locks and latches are great when they work. When they don't, shit like this happens.

At least most cars still have a physical connection between the door handle and the locking mechanism. Not Tesla, for no good goddamned reason.

I'd bet that channel "members" don't get ads for that channel regardless of premium status.

IMO, Google made premium, almost nobody bought it. So they went after adblockers, hoping that people would get premium to get rid of the ads. People most just Adblock harder.

While this is happening, one exec is peering over the fence at twitch. Where they only way to get away from ads without a pretty good Adblock, is to subscribe to the individual creator.

So they make "memberships" to channels a thing.

Almost nobody buys that either. So they go... What if, even if someone is premium, we give them ads, unless they're a channel member.

Genius.

Paying to block ads per creator/channel/whatever, is a special level of bullshit that twitch has always had.

The system is working as expected. The companies are trying to find the best way to extract the most value from you using their platform.

I chalk most of the shit that makes teams horrible, is closely related to electron and their whole web app as a desktop app bullshit.

Buckle up, because they're doing that same enshittification to outlook next. It's already begun. There's a "new" Outlook. FML.

That's certainly a possibility.

I would argue that we're both right depending on what the widget is.

(Assuming the price is changed to be proportional and appropriate for the product) Something like a grocery item is more prone to my thought, and something that has generational differences, such as a laptop or something, will likely follow your theory more closely.

I think a lot of this will still be tied to price elasticity. If the price is very elastic then the former system would be more likely. Drop the price so you can push more units (and overall, profit goes up), where things that are far less elastic, say, an iPhone, would tend to simply continue to increase like the latter system you describe.

At the end of the day, both are horrid, terrible, and very very common. So I'll finish by saying: no matter what happens, people are going to be getting massively fucked, and corporations will post record profits yet again.

Fuck corporations.

I learned all about this in "thinking fast and slow" by Daniel Kahneman. He talks about system 1 and system 2, where system 1 is your kind of knee-jerk reaction to a thing (thinking fast), and system 2 is the contemplative and careful consideration of a thing (thinking slow).

I would argue that some people overly leverage system 1 (thinking fast) because it's generally easier, and takes less time and mental effort to do. Those that either can't, or are unwilling to engage system 2 in their day to day activities, will 100% fall for these kinds of misleading prices, since system 1 is cutting so many corners so that it can be fast and efficient (mostly on how much energy is used), that it skips a lot of the cognitive steps and goes right to the (often incorrect) conclusion. That $19.99 is $19 (or $10 in some cases).

In the book, they discuss that system 1 often gives the wrong information that is later rejected by system 2 when further consideration is given to a particular input/stimulus.

If someone isn't engaging system 2 as a check to ensure system 1 isn't lying to them, then shit like $19.99 seems cheaper than $20. It doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, but they're not targeting thoughtful people with these practices. For thoughtful people, there's functionally no difference between $19.99 and $20.

Yes, the difference is one cent, but given that one cent is so worthless in today's society, to the point that Canada stopped making one cent coins (and other countries have done so as well), there's functionally no difference between the prices.

One cent is only worth anything if it is combined with many other cents. The sum of those pennies becomes valuable when you conglomerate enough of them.

The science is about how you initially react to the number. Your brain will see $19, and immediately you'll think it's $19. Only upon further inspection and processing through your cognition, you recognise that its $19.99, which is basically $20.

It's that initial reaction they want, to grab your attention. Anyone who is going through life without leveraging their higher thinking will fall for this shit. Anyone who thinks, at all, won't.

Unfortunately, there's a nontrivial number of people who fall into that first category. People who were never taught to think. They just do.

The owners of the legislature don't want that, so it won't get done.

The government doesn't work for you, it works at the behest of those that have long since paid for the "elected" representatives.

Those people own companies that profit from all the misleading prices and adverts. They don't have any interest in changing that.

I appreciate that you recognise the pitfalls here.

In don't think you're wrong at all, and I'm sure as shit not putting in the effort to figure out if you're right or wrong, but if someone comes along with better/newer info, you have already recognized that the info you have might be outdated.

Kudos.