I’ve seen some of the photos of people driving American-sized pickup trucks around Europe and I hope they get outlawed. Unfortunately, Europe and Asia do have so many more options - sometimes even by American companies much to my annoyance.
I occasionally look into getting a Kei car of some sort. Though it’s not really practical for me. Maybe one day, by the time a sub five inch flagship phone is developed perhaps.
Small vehicle sales represent less than a fifth of the market. Major manufacturers have ceased production of sedans and hatchbacks in favour of larger platform SUVs and pickup trucks.
I realise that vehicles aren’t really the focus here, but the smartphone market isn’t too dissimilar in certain ways. The major manufacturers have discontinued their smaller for factor devices citing ‘sales’, but those devices cost nearly what a larger one did so it’s reasonable that consumers would opt for the bigger screen, especially when it’s typically coupled with a larger battery and superior camera.
Also similar between these two markets, if you look overseas, or at older used models, or make any of a variety of compromises, you can find something if you’re determined. Or you don’t find something and just deal with the giant phone that sticks half out your pocket and you can’t sit down without removing it.
Personally, I’m enjoying watching the advances in folding phones. They are approaching Westworld standards pretty quick. Trouble of course will be when they get there, it’ll cost the same as a car and at that point it better unfold some wheels too.
Similar to vehicles, smaller phones probably would sell just fine.
The issue would be that not many people would buy a phone 2/3 the size unless it was also 2/3 the price. Even if the manufacturing of such a device was 2/3 the cost (it wouldn’t be), the bottom line for the manufacturer would be same number of devices sold, but 1/3 less money.
Companies don’t do less money.
Yes I suppose, just like anything, a nuance here would be whether or not we expect a person of such political authority to be able to have weekends at all.
On one hand, they’re still a person working a job and no one should be working 365 days a year On the other, the societal cost, in terms of income tax covering travel and security costs, of having a President that travels every weekend is a bit much.
If the President was only golfing on the weekends, and wasn’t charging the government to golf at his own clubs, then this whole thing of him taking leisure every weekend would be a harder thing to argue against without getting into that whole administration work life balance discussion.
Not for nothing, but the headline of the article is talking about time spent golfing, and so is neon_nova’s comment.
The thing the President did isn’t the problem, or really even the frequency. The problem is the cost to the taxpayer.
‘20,000 American’s pay for President’s golf habit’ would be a better title.
Eight days so far during ‘work week’ time. If he was going on his own dime, this wouldn’t be worth talking about.
It just makes a better talking point to say ‘he’s golfed 37 days out of 152’ despite it not being about how he’s using his weekends (assuming we hold government to the same 5 on 2 off standard as most of us have) when it’s really about how much it’s costing.
A better headline would be ‘President spends income tax of 20,000 Americans on personal entertainment’.
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.
Last time I tried Simplex, the battery drain was unbelievable. Maybe I’ll give it another go and see what happens, but I’m not optimistic.
Inglorious Basterds, 2009.
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.
I did of course mean ecologically friendly and not economically friendly.
That said - less than ten times the price to help the environment and of course make the country smell like a pancake breakfast? Sign me up!
They run on maple syrup though, which means they’re eco friendly.
‘Gish gallop’ is the perfect descriptor for this onslaught of every hour insanity we’re going through.
Again, you repeat the same words as the Americans did some hundred years ago when Hitler was rising to power.
I hope for the sake of your neighbours that you are correct and that the Nazism of the west does not bleed beyond the borders of the United States.
Do check in four years down the line. Best of luck.
Given the noise Musk has been making surrounding the political landscape in Germany, the United Kingdom, and lately Canada, it stands to reason that the richest person on the planet is actively trying to make the world revolve around him.
Sentiment similar to yours was undoubtedly stated a century ago throughout Europe; ‘You overestimate the impact Germany has on the citizenry outside of it.’ Look where that attitude got the world, and here you are saying the same thing.
You won’t live near cities that clean up their waterways? You could rival Michelin publishing that list of reasons you have.