I was being sincere, my friend. I genuinely envy that worldview. I long for it. I wish above nearly all else I could reset. I was being authentic and vulnerable. Why does that infuriate you?
Read your statement again and tell me who the pessimist is, and who is most in need of a break from the internet.
The legal structures that mandate what power google actually has over mozilla still presumably exist though. Pretending that we are in full blown dictatorship is, in my view, still cynical.
Though of course there’s no telling how far we will eventually go in a trumpworld.
> Pretending that we are in full blown dictatorship is, in my view, still cynical.
Could you please point to what I said that implies I'm pretending a "full blown dictatorship?" I apologize if that's somehow what I indicated. It certainly wasn't my intent.
There was absolutely nothing backhanded about anything I said. I regret if it came across that way.
I wish you'd have elaborated on specifics and actually tried to understand, rather than telling me what I believe. I can see now you just want to be angry at someone, and I'm no longer interested in engaging with you. In any case, I'm genuinely sorry for whatever I've done to activate you, and I wish you well.
> No one price matches for protein bars because it's a commodity item with minimal price differences (and people often have a preferred brand anyway), but they probably do for $2k laptop.
This is the most "silicon valley" statement I've ever read on this website. Perhaps I'm just being obtuse and misunderstanding, but the assertion people don't price match groceries is so, so wrong. Many, many, many people have no choice. Far more than those regularly purchasing laptops.
>the assertion people don't price match groceries is so, so wrong. Many, many, many people have no choice
I guess I didn't quite say my point clearly, the time and physical cost to get to a grocery store puts up barriers against perfect price matching. You likely are not going to go out of your way to visit a grocery store for just a single item.
And I don't think online delivery will change anything here because shipping is a fixed cost, so price swings less than that will not change any buying habits.
> I guess I didn't quite say my point clearly, the time and physical cost to get to a grocery store puts up barriers against perfect price matching. You likely are not going to go out of your way to visit a grocery store for just a single item.
I think you’re a bit out of touch with the common man. People do this constantly, some to a comical degree, going so far as to make two loops on their shopping trip to return groceries they found cheaper at the next store.
> People do this constantly, some to a comical degree, going so far as to make two loops on their shopping trip to return groceries they found cheaper at the next store.
To go less far, it is pretty common for normies to have at least two supermarkets in their shopping list: one with lower prices and one with higher prices, but fancier goods.
I have never heard of someone returning groceries (unless it turned out to be moldy or something). Definitely not because they were cheaper elsewhere. Surely there would be food safety issues with accepting such returns.
Step into any Walmart and look at the carts in the customer service section full of just-returned merchandise, waiting to be returned to the shelves. You might be surprised with what you see.
amazing reading this thread and realizing just how much HN is disconnected from the reality of majority of people in America. returning food and hitting multiple stores is like a daily thing for several people I know
It's a great joke (and yes, a hilarious thread!), it's $10 in the original joke though so I would say it still works for now (not sure what a banana costs in the US today. Here it's about $1).
You may be assuming a car-centric approach to shopping, where the distance between stores is large. In cities where shops are mixed into residential areas, people often walk because stores are usually within about 10 minutes, and there are multiple options with different selections and prices.
That makes it easy to rotate: stop by one store one day, another the next, often on the way home from work since you’re taking the subway or bus anyway. For example, I buy most of my groceries at one store, and then pick up certain items in bulk at other stores every 1-3 months when they carry the brand I want at a good price (unless my usual store has a sale). Most people I know do something similar, especially as groceries have gotten more expensive, particularly since COVID.
>, the time and physical cost to get to a grocery store puts up barriers against perfect price matching. You likely are not going to go out of your way to visit a grocery store for just a single item.
I'm rather well off and I'll still pay attention to the price of my groceries. Especially luxuries like protein bars. If it's too much, I'll either only get them where they'll cheaper or just outright not buy it.
It's nuts that people genuinely believe statements like this.
It’s an aspect of the truth. Tons of people don’t price match and tons of people do.
Whats nuts about humans is the quickness of judgement and extremity of statements. Think about this, the man who said that is not actually nuts. And you calling him “nuts” is actually the more ludicrously unrealistic statement.
I also did err by making a blanket statement "no one price matches for protein bars", so GP was right to call it out.
I do understand and see that there are cases in which one's time preference could be such that it is sensible or necessary to price-match at that granularity even when buying a single unit. However even then there's still other constraints such as cost of transportation & reputation of vendor.
Even today you can often find protein bars or name-brand supplements on Amazon for a slightly lower price (including shipping) than supermarkets, but that comes with the risk of adulterated, expired, or tampered products that not everyone will accept for the sake of slightly lower prices.
It's not that "nuts" to take the literal meaning of people's own words. Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though. It might be common for folks to misspeak (mistype), but that by no stretch of the imagination makes their actual meaning obvious. It's quite literally the opposite...
Normal isn't a myth. The mistake people make is taking the mode as normal, or worse mistaking their own experience as normal. But humans generally do tend to have a range of common behaviors that a significant percentage of people fit into. And you probably can even predict it to a reasonable degree, if you have some other metadata to correlate which sub-group they might correspond to.
Normal in the sense of "you can model a distribution of human behavioral processes or outcomes" that encompasses, say, 95% of humans in a given culture or geography is very much a thing you can do. And I'd go as far as to say a large chunk of the mental bandwidth of the average person is running those simulation models just to operate in a multi-human-agent world.
(If you want to say we observe bimodal or other multi-peaked distributions in practices rather than "normal" ones, I will strongly agree, but that usually isn't the objection when people say "normal is a myth")
"Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them a liar and a dick because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on intent and deception? You would?"
They clearly weren't calling you nuts, for what it's worth. Saying something you said is nuts is not the literal saying "the person who said this is clinically insane and should be locked up".
Legitimate question, I don't mean to be insensitive, but are you not a native English speaker or something?
>Calling it "obvious" someone meant something rather than what they actually typed with their own fingers is pretty nuts though.
The above is what he said in response to me defending someone and saying that they are not "nuts". I am the person who called it "obvious".
The colloquial meaning changes in context. Under normal conditions you're correct, it's a benign statement, that's slightly derogatory. But I changed the context. I emphasized the minor derogatoriness of making that statement and I said the person you said that to is not in actuality "nuts". Then he proceeded to call me (aka my statements) "nuts".
Look I don't know if you're trolling, but you're utterly wrong. It was a targeted statement. It's clear what was said, there is just something wrong with how YOU are interpreting it. I am a native english speaker.
They said "no one". Not even "most", let alone "half" or "some". Those are their words.
To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half of their countrymen.
Anyway, the irony is not lost that you simultaneously advocate for the parent being interpreted non-literally, by intent, but my colloquial, common use of the word "nuts" is "unacceptable".
>To live in a country where tens of millions of people have food insecurity, 50 million rely on food stamps, and the median income is 40,000 while the median rent is 1,700 (20,000/year) and claim no one has to watch their grocery bill to their own inconvenience would be utterly disconnected from the reality of the survival of half of their countrymen.
Stop turning this into some kind of holier than thou angle. He knows, you know we all know.
>Anyway, the irony is not lost that you simultaneously advocate for the parent being interpreted non-literally, by intent, but my colloquial, common use of the word "nuts" is "unacceptable".
It is, because it's a targetted attack. Let me put it this way, would you say what you said to someones face? Your best friend? You mother? or father and call them nuts because they said something that was off? Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on the amount of people relying on food stamps? You would? Then please continue.
What are we, children? You're acting like I insulted their mother and called the police.
> would you say what you said to someones face?
Yes, of course I would. I have. "That's nuts" or "it's nuts" is such a basic, inoffensive phrase and has no bite.
I've also said "incredulous" and "absurd" and "crazy" and a myriad of other adjectives. I've also had my arguments called those things - correctly. Maybe we keep different types of company, but when I'm having an argument/debate with friends or family, they're not so delicate we can't call each other out when one of us is being ridiculous.
> Would you go on some holier than thou lecture on the amount of people relying on food stamps?
Damn, objective facts and counterpoints related directly to the conversation are holier than thou now? I guess I forgot that when people say things diametrically opposed to basic reality, we're all supposed to just ignore it and let it go.
After all, we wouldn't want to be seen as a loon by a random guy on the internet, offended on someone else's behalf over a one syllable word that wasn't even directed at any individual, but an idea.
Yes, but that is different from going out of your way to purchase the protein bar at the lower price in the place you can find it. You are not going to drive to another supermarket for just the protein bar alone. So there is an intrinsic stickiness. You might hold off on the purchase if you're happening to visit the other store in the near future, but would you drive to a store you've never heard of before /just/ for a bar?
> but would you drive to a store you've never heard of before /just/ for a bar
Some people have no choice. Checking other stores and planning multiple trips is exactly what they do, e.g. those on fixed income, coupon power-users, etc.
Outside our comfy bubble here, there are a LOT more folks in that camp than those buying luxury goods.
The difference is the airwaves are a limited transmission method. A broadcast medium is not regulated because it's dangerous, it's regulated because it's scarce.
Do I believe in community, empathy, kindness toward my fellow human beings? Why, yes. Yes I do. Am I willing to pay a few bucks to put my money where my mouth yes. Why yes, yes I am.
What if someone else thinks that there are better (more kind, empathetic) uses of that money than funding someone's college? Why is "free college" the most kind and empathetic thing we can do with this money?
The unfortunate reality is that your kindness and empathy is a resource that is being exploited by unseen actors.
You are being taken for a ride and you feel good about it.
I absolutely support maximizing access to education and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm not willing to prop up a giant unsecured-loan grift that transfers financial risk onto those least able to bear it, while universities jack up their tuition to grab their slice of this new pie.
You are correct and I am making a conscious choice. I'm not being taken for a ride, I'm willingly offering one, even to those who would rob me blind given the chance.
Of course there are those who would exploit. But I'm not going to punish the well-deserving masses because of the unscrupulous few. It's a very small sacrifice I can make each year, which has the potential to positively impact the lives of thousands of families, and for generations to come.
Were I to refuse participation in such an opportunity to "protect" myself, I'd be no less selfish and greedy than those you warned me about.
We don't have the option to "refuse participation," so that's not really the point. We can feel better or worse about it, and you feel good about it, and that's great. I feel good for the individual students who benefit but do not feel good about the institutional corruption that this system represents.
If we were to finally reform the student loan process without any protections for the students themselves, it'd be a painful correction for everyone. But the current system has massive pain in the form of students taking on massive debt to go to places like the University of Phoenix, and they often don't even end up with a degree. Some of them do, of course, so maybe under the current system we end up better off as a whole. It's hard for me to know one way or the other.
But it is painfully obvious who the winners and losers are. The winners are the universities, debt collectors and loan servicing companies. The losers are some percentage of low-income students who get screwed and saddled with debt, the well-meaning taxpayers who fund the loan scheme, and the middle-class parents who pay ever-rising tuition that is fueled by loan money that they don't even qualify for.
They appear to have recently removed the "show fewer shorts options" in the app. I pay for premium and the idea I cannot remove them from the app even as part of that is absolutely infuriating.
I've long wished for a 'filter' feature for the hn feed -- namely the old trend of web3 slop -- but with little else than keywords to filter, it would likely be tedious and inaccurate. Ironically, I think with AI/LLMs it could be a little easier to analyze.
Read your statement again and tell me who the pessimist is, and who is most in need of a break from the internet.
reply