For the best experience on desktop, install the Chrome extension to track your reading on news.ycombinator.com
Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | history | more DataDive's commentsregister

I always use my reusable bags,

On the other hand, I found that sometimes I run out of plastic bags when I need them at home.

In some situations, a plastic bag is super useful: store a wet paintbrush overnight, wrap something that needs to retain moisture, lock up some smelly stuff, etc.

In those cases, I go to a store that still has plastic bags, then buy some stuff there and generously pack them into plastic bags.


> Those reusable shopping bags [...] How many times have you used your last one?

This reply blew my mind ... when you realize someone must have the exact opposite experience ...

of course I use the reusable bags,

they are in the trunk, and first step after pulling into the parking spot is to take these out the trunk and head into the store

in the last 5 years used only my reusable shopping bag every time except in a few cases when I forgot to put the bags back in the trunk for some reason (usually, I needed to transport bigger things)


I think there is a huge difference between an article critical of country X and an article accusing country X of genocide.

Above, I am trying hard not to take sides in the issue; I am just pointing out the semantics.

Accusing someone of a heinous crime should NOT be described as "being critical".

With this title, the journalists at AP are doing everyone a disservice here.


Please explain to me what would make you think Israel is guilty of committing genocide? Maybe an ICC warranty?

There is a big difference of accusing and being critical, it doesn't mean that it is wrong to accuse a genocidal government of committing genocide.


I don't think the GP is making any comment on whether there is or isn't a genocide, nor trying to be convinced either way. It seems they are saying - and I agree - that there is a difference between an article accusing someone of committing genocide and an article which is critical of someone.


The longer you use Spotify, the less able you will be to do without Spotify. We can only guess what that will do with prices.

FWIW, today, at $12 per month, the service is trivially cheap and unsustainable. A coffee costs 5 bucks.

Complaining about price increases when a product is dirt cheap makes no sense. The price most people are willing to pay is much higher IMHO.


I think what triggers most of us to complain is the fact that the price goes up while the value goes down.

Spotify is actually a great value, but they keep making it worse and worse. If they had announced a price increase along side of an announcement of "we're doing this to compensate for the expected loss of income that will occur when we remove podcasts from the UI as we refocus on our core competency of delivering you amazing music and helping you discover amazing new music" we'd be cheering the price increase.

But no, the price will go up, and they'll F-up the UI even further to make it even harder to actually find music in it, and they still won't offer high quality streams.

"Get what you pay for" is fine, but what they're giving me is getting closer and closer to what I'd expect to get for free.


Isn't that a natural consequence of getting a product for cheap?

They have to do both: raise the price and deteriorate the service on their march to a sustainable value/price ratio.


You can migrate off Spotify right now with an app like Songshift - try out other music apps like Apple Music and see they work for your collection/playlists.

I have both an Apple Music family plan as well as Spotify individual for several years, but will probably migrate off Spotify (if only to send a pricing signal to them). My kids have an iPad set up with my apple account, so I'll have to migrate them off to their own account first.

Spotify won't lose their core listeners, but folks like me who were probably already spending too much will realize they've wasted years of sparse usage.

If I find Apple Music isn't working I can always migrate back.


>A coffee costs 5 bucks.

The number of people spending five or more dollars on a single cup of coffee can't possibly be so high that it brings the overall average to five dollars, could it?? That would make me sick.


Bubble tea, which is not even a sophisticated resource like coffee, is also over 5 bucks where I live,

FWIW is not even a particularly expensive place in the US.


Spotify is in the class of products with the least control over how much something should cost.

They don't own any of the music they resell.

They have no alternative supplier of the same products.


Wouldn't the approach benefit lawmakers even more?

Lawmaker makes a trade; everyone copies them, and now the original purchase is even more attractive ...


What nobody knows is what happens when everyone goes full ham with manipulations.

All these techniques, from gamification to behavioral mining, were developed in isolation - when only one actor maximized their profits.

Their results apply when most other actors don't pursue the same goals.

Once everyone starts to do it, I predict none will work and will be counterproductive on a larger scale.

A bit of a tragedy of commons.


This is why time matters. Society has generational amnesia. New generations will think of this as normal, and will even call you weird for thinking it could ever work differently. There will be an equilibrium, but it will be much farther than you consider reasonable.


For example I think there is only so many gatcha games one can play in a lifetime.

When the gatcha concept is new, everyone is on board and seems like a golden goose, but who will do it again and again?

a generational amnesia is still 20 years ...


Seems like a bit of a prisoner's dilemma from the perspective of the companies

If they don't do it but their competitors do, they will lose

But if all of them do it they will all lose in the end


You can see this dilemma on YouTube. Videos with highly exaggerated facial expressions, arrows, and sensationalized titles full of exclamation marks tend to attract far more clicks (and therefore more revenue) than those with honest titles and straightforward thumbnails. This trend has forced even high-quality content creators to adopt these tactics to remain financially viable. Despite the misleading titles and thumbnails, their actual content often maintains the same high standards once the video begins.


I sometimes wonder if patrons get access to new videos without the spoiler/click bait thumbnail and the intro that shows the finished product.

It’s like, “today you won’t guess what I’ll be building” yes, I can, you just showed me twice.


I see clickbait thumbnail, I press do not recommend channel. It is the only way.


If you are watching from the browser I can recommend Clickbait Remover for Youtube. It replaces the title image with a frame from the video itself. It also changes the case of titles for them not to scream at you.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/clickbait-rem...

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/clickbait-remover-f...


Nah, you put that as thumbnail, you deserve your channel banned.


Unfortunately, people like you and me are the minority.


it is not about explicitly voting down a Youtube channel to punish the creator for making exaggerated claims,

that type of action does not scale

what will happen instead is that people will develop an immunity to these types of thumbnails and you will visit less - behaviors are the main driving mechanisms

it will be boring like exaggerated burlesque facial expressions in the early movies


That's advertising in a nutshell. Except we all lose, because of all the resources and people-hours burned on efforts that just cancel each other out.


And a nash equilibrium will be found, exactly as free markets should behave.


"a nash equilibrium" also known as "the bottom, reached after a race there"

It's not really what I would call a good outcome


And what about the underserved consumers keeping this whole equilibrium afloat?


Why would they stop working when everyone does it?

The methods described might be new, but the underlying principle is simple and fundamental - charge customers based on their willingness-to-pay. If customers are willing to pay $10 for your product, as opposed to $20, almost all businesses would take that into account when setting their prices.

In a low-tech world, you can only price stuff using one-size-fits-all. So you would price stuff based on something like median-willingness-to-pay. This puts your product out-of-reach for half its potential customers, while giving a big discount to the other half. The techniques described in the article are designed to "fix" the above - sell the product to as many people as possible, and give everyone a more even discount compared to their willingness-to-pay.

There is no reason for this strategy to stop working just because other companies are also doing it. In fact, it will only snowball once this practice becomes more commonly accepted.

In a macro sense, fine-grain-price-differentiation is undoubtedly in the best interests of all corporations. Whether they are in the best interests of consumers is more debatable. I'm guessing the answer is no. In theory, the best possible outcome is perfect price differentiation, coupled with increased corporate tax rates (or capital gains tax rates) that are used to lower income tax rates. I doubt this will happen anytime soon.


It stops working as more people understand the tricks.

Trust works only when most actors are trustworthy.

Once you know the prices are jacked up just for "you", and once you know you are being "played," you behave differently and resist.

That is the point I am making, true value + gamification = price, but the gamification part is the quickest to do away with.


> Once you know the prices are jacked up just for "you", and once you know you are being "played," you behave differently and resist.

This isn't true. If you find out that only Tesla is customizing their car-price for you personally, you may decide to boycott Tesla. But what are you going to do if every single car company does the same thing? Boycott all cars and take the bus? Hence my point that price-personalization works even better when more companies do it, not less.


Yes, but that just changes your price sensitivity (potentially all the way to 0 if you refuse). There might be some ringing or chaotic dynamics in the price discovery dynamic system but a sufficiently advanced algorithm could take that into account. Still dystopian depending on your perspective.


> Why would they stop working when everyone does it?

If everyone does it, it's a de facto cartel.

Cartels generally end when one of the members breaks ranks and starts selling the product for less than the agreed-upon cartel price and vacuuming up all the customers. The result is often a price war.


Everyone does it because across most industries key commodities have been allowed to create little cartels and monopolies.


I read it a bit, but it seems the article is little more than a single person's anecdotal observations.

I tuned out after reading about 40% ... there is no conclusive evidence presented, just one person's observations over their career ... then you get things like:

> The older I get, the more I understand what's been broken

well ... yeah, that's how it works


Here is the evidence:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/06/22/employee...

Make half the money if you are a two year or more employee.


I largely agree here that of all the components in a stack, unicorn seems to be the least troublesome and almost invisible.

I have never had a problem that I would have traced back to gunicorn not working ...

On the other hand not having to run gunicorn as another separate service might be an advantage.


One of the common misdirections propagated by these articles is arguing that inflation dropped from 10% to 4%, so things must be better, why aren't people happy about that?

but wait that 4% is on top of the 10%,

the thing that matters is whether the income went up 10% before hitting the 4% inflation, only then would the 4% be a positive number.

the inflation does indeed slow when people run out of money, but that's not going to make put them in good mood


This point is really irritating. When pundits complain about the public being wrong on the economy, they constantly ignore the fact that inflation has been very high for many months, prices went up, so even if inflation is lower now - the prices are still up. I can see the impact of it every time I go to the grocery store.


Yes but you also make more money. American's buying power has literally never been higher.


My salary definitely did not go up by 10% if that's what you mean.


That's a you problem, not something shown by the wage growth data.


Wage growth data is showing that the US wages grew by 10% over the same period we experienced the 10% inflation? Highly doubt it but would be happy to be proven wrong.


Yes, the word "inflation" is pretty much propaganda. Especially when you start talking about rates of change of rates of change. People are concerned when they discover that they are now poorer than they were just a handful of years ago and now a box of Cheerios costs $7.


The statistics say that wage growth has outpaced inflation.


Any sources that you can provide which integrate both of those measures (so that we are comparing prices to salary)? (and of course even if inflation and wage growth were always identical, people would be worse off as they get pushed in to higher tax brackets)


This is full time only, but it sort of clearly shows earnings outpacing CPI.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q


  Q4 2019: 362
  Q1 2020: 367
  Q1 2024: 365


Only go up?

The existential dread is all about how it's worse than it's ever been before, not about how wage growth has been a little soft for a few years.


Call it a draw? Seems flat for the past 4 years on the average. I'm glad that someone is getting better than 3% yearly raises.


Correct, it's higher than 2019. Do you think Q1 2020 was a time of mass affluence? You remember the food lines and 15% unemployment, right? It's composition effects.


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search:

HN For You