He wants the thing. He does not value the thing at 1300 dollars so he would not buy it for 1300 dollars. He found it for a lower value, he kept it because the point at the start was he wanted the thing.
On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?
it could simply be that you value owning the object in terms other than money. sentimental reasons, completionism tendencies, novelty, some other "non-rational"/emotional reason; any of these can have a stronger pull on the mind than $1300 to someone who doesn't immediately need the cash for survival. i have some records like this (not in that price-range but still) along with a few other collectible items (some rare handmade keycaps that were going for over $500 a piece at one point) that I refuse to part with for money because i just... like them :)
The point is it's irrational behavior. And we all do it.
It's burning $5 in gas and $20 in time to go to a store further away and save $25 on a sale item. And then proudly bragging "I'm not like those idiots who pay full price!"
OP didn't find a record...he found a $1300 arbitrage, then decided to spend the proceeds on the record by keeping it.
In other words, this is why selling stuff to consumers is a nightmare.
You have to trick them into believing they "won one over" on everybody else, via discounting and promotions, no matter if ultimately they're the ones losing by spending hours of their time jumping through hoops on a product that they legitimately value at full price.
> On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?
The disease of financialization at work. Money is all that matters to people, everything is converted into money. It's only value is what you could get from selling it, and/or what you spent to acquire it.
Like those weird fuckers who buy $200k supercars so they can sit in a damn garage. (She said, having put 30k miles on a Corvette inside of 3 years)
> 10k mi/yr is a nice round "lease" number of miles. Are you sure you don't value the resale value of your car more than the joy value?
I mean it's helped by the fact that I can only realistically drive it like 7-8 months out of each year, and it's my fun car, not a commuter. As much as I'd love to drive for fun every day that's just not feasible, lol. That said it's resale value has never once entered my mind. I'm waiting until the loan is paid off at which point I'm planning several modifications to get more power out of it, and probably a lambo-door-hinge kit.
Not that user but I don't think this is as difficult as you're making it out to be?
On Reddit, Instagram, Tiktok et al I can create a community on that platform. I can get find other people into Booktok, I can join the Rowing subreddit, I can get into Knittinggram or whatever. Posters expect roughly their micro-community to see their posts, users expect to see their micro-community's posts.
On hacker news I see the same community everyone else does. If HN was a vBulletin forum with threads posted for links it would function almost 1:1 the same, I guess all you'd need to change is a modification for making threads bump on vote behaviour instead of latest-post.
TL;DR. If you ask me, the essence of social media today is the algorithm and the "social curation". Is what I see dictated by some behind the scenes algorithm and by the mob (votes, views, engagement, flags, clicks)? It's social media.
But fair enough. Don't forums have subforums for different interests, topics and specific discussions and sub-communities? They have the option to follow other members or topics in a customized consumption experience. In my personal experience on large and small forums, including those I administered or moderated, most users lived their entire life in specific subforums. The user that only posted in the CPU subforum, or the Nikon subforum. The user who created the "photos of flowers" or "case modding" topic and only hung around there with kindred souls in their micro-community. Forums were really reddit at a smaller scale.
> I guess all you'd need to change is a modification for making threads bump on vote behaviour instead of latest-post.
This is downplaying the weight the hidden algorithm has on what you see on HN. Much like every other social media site and very much unlike classic forums, submissions and comments here live and die at the hand of an algorithm that decides whether today you get to read about the Israel/Gaza conflict, about Democrats/Republicans. This algorithm is driven on one hand by the social aspect (people deciding what's media and what isn't, hence the "social"), on the other hand by some obscure engagement rules that none of us can see or define.
I don't make it "seem" more complicated, it "is" more complicated because experts don't fully agree on exactly what social media is. Everyone tries to use their experience, preference, and common sense and these all vary.
P.S. The current top comment isn’t there because it’s the most recent, the only objectively correct one, or a mod pinned it. It’s there because the algorithm driven by social engagement decided it’s the media I should see first.
You're equating subreddits to forums but on forums people recognised other posters and the average subreddit poster will never read the same username twice, if they even notice they're there.
I see the argument you're making, but it's not convincing. These just aren't similar types of social engagement.
> The current top comment isn’t there because it’s the most recent, the only objectively correct one, or a mod pinned it. It’s there because the algorithm driven by social engagement decided it’s the media I should see first.
When people neglect to vote that they like the comment you posted, or they vote that they didn't like the thing you posted, this is algorithm driven by social engagement.
When the forum software which sorts by newest-posted-first bumps your thread off the front page because no one cared enough to reply that was also an algorithm driven by social engagement.
It seems a lot to me like the "hidden algorithm" part is the same? It is still the users indicating more/no more in the end.
Is it not clear at this point that the real issue is how lacking the term "social media" even is? We have people here arguing that BBSs were social media, it will not be long until email is considered social media.
At this point it's a vague term meaning "a place where you talk to another person online" and nothing more than that.
I'm solidly of the opinion especially after seeing so many arguments of this form on HN that the whole world has accidentally forgotten the term "social network" at some point, because "social media" means nothing.
> Is it not clear at this point that the real issue is how lacking the term "social media" even is?
It's very clear. Empirically a common sign across all social media is basing very strong opinions on very vague personal interpretation of something that that will forever stay unwritten so it can't be challenged. Anyone can just cement their claim to eternal correctness by ending a personal opinion with some outrage bait like "anyone who doesn't agree with me is tiresome".
“Social network” is a better term. I think “parasocial network” is better; the former implies small group chats while the latter doesn’t.
Except “mainstream social media”, because everyone knows what you’re talking about, including some who’d be confused by “mainstream parasocial network” because they don’t know what parasocial means.
* The people are not fine with bad strawberries but have no other choices available
* The people are not fine with bad strawberries but can't afford better choices
* The people are not fine with bad strawberries but they don't know good strawberries
* The people are not fine with bad strawberries but they're cheap enough to ship and sell that there's no economic case for good strawberries, so no one close enough to buy from will sell good strawberries to them
"The market seems fine with it" is kind of a lazy thought terminating cliche answer. What if the invisible hand of the market is pushing strawberry producers towards the outcome "society no longer values this enough to buy it" in which case the aggregate wallet vote will be zero?
The people are not fine with bad strawberries but they don't know good strawberries
You most definitely get this phenomenon with tomatoes. There’s little demand for actually good tomatoes, because most people don’t even know what a good tomato tastes like at this point.
This applies to countless things, but tomatoes are a prime example because they deteriorate so quickly once picked relative to other fruits I guess. So they have completely bred the flavor out of them in a quest to achieve something that looks good on a supermarket shelf.
This is a phenomenal example I hadn't even considered, because I have been affected by this kind of "invisible hand of the market" negative quality spiral.
The older generation here remember good tomatoes, so they continue to buy bad tomatoes but will complain every time they eat them about the quality. I get told a lot about heirloom varieties and how good they are in comparison.
I grew up with modern tomatoes. I've never tried an heirloom so I can't compare, but I don't recall ever eating a good tomato, so I just don't buy them. The market has moved itself into a position that shrinks its own demographic.
I see people constantly make this argument, and honestly I think it’s BS. I grew up eating tomatoes from my grandparents garden, and I’ve lived and traveled all over the world. I’ve grown tomatoes, bought them from roadside farmer stands, bought them at grocery stores, and had them in everything from hole in the wall restaurants in developing countries to Michelin three star restaurants on multiple different continents.
Today’s grocery tomatoes are fine. And my grocery stores generally have 5-10 varieties too.
Yes, you can get better ones, but not to where it’s some religious experience that will forever ruin grocery store tomatoes.
On top of that, most people really don’t care that much, not because they don’t know any better, but because the cost and convenience factor trumps the slight subjective increase in quality. I doubt most people could even tell the difference between two tomatoes of the same type and ripeness if one came from the grocery store and the other from a backyard garden.
I’ll grant that most non-local tomatoes have always been bad by definition, because they’re picked while green so they don’t rot before reaching the store.
Plum tomatoes absolutely did not used to be this bad, though. They are SO mealy now. Horrible. Beefsteaks are mealier as well. Those Campari tomatoes are pretty good year-round, though, I have to admit.
This is all in the NE USA, FWIW. I don’t know the tomato situation elsewhere.
I doubt most people could even tell the difference
between two tomatoes of the same type and ripeness
if one came from the grocery store and the other from
a backyard garden.
Yeah, and I would run as fast as Usain Bolt if we woke up with the same body one day.
But that kind of the thing. They would almost never be the same ripeness because outside of local tomato season the tomatoes are picked while unripe, and then they “shelf-ripen” in transit because ethylene gas etc. That’s always been an issue, of course, and hasn’t changed over time.
The other issue is breeding - the continual breeding for appearance rather than flavor. Maybe we’re all imagining that one.
Isn't the point that we don't grow the good varieties any longer because they don't survive freight? It doesn't matter if you bought the tomato seeds from Harrods and grew them in your lush orchard if they're the same lineage bred for shipping hardiness over all else.
1. Store-bought tomatoes are nearly always bred for shippability and appearance over flavor
2. Store-bought tomatoes are picked when unripe, so they shelf-ripen during transit and at the store, which is highly inferior to ripening on the vine for flavor
For the first issue... you can buy heirloom tomato seeds at any major hardware or garden store in America.
For the second issue... even the typical tomato breeds will taste great if you grow them yourself and let them vine-ripen till they're ready to eat.
There's an NPC who walks you to the pokemart and gives you a potion. For me that dialogue was something like "You receive a !" and it then said "You place it in the 23 pocket" -- seems related?
5 weeks, even contiguous is not enough to unwind from decades of job induced stress. I took some time off between jobs, and it was a solid 3 months before I noticed major improvements.
Multiple countries take the entirety of August off. This is most common in France, but also Italy and Spain. 5, 6 weeks of contiguous holiday is commonplace in France. This is a big enough trend for there to be data.
There's tons of people over here taking 3 or 4 weeks contiguous, especially if they have children. That is in addition to other vacations around christmas etc. It's definitely not 5 separate weeks.
I don't think there's a lot of things that one could do in 5 weeks, but where 4 weeks would be too short.
Tons? Hyperbole? Are they teachers or something? That amount of leave in one go is basically unheard of, with the exception of maternity leave I don't know anyone who's been on leave for more than 3 weeks as a single block.
This is also taking from that same 5 week leave bucket people have available per annum, if they're taking 4 weeks then they have 5 days to last the remainder of the year. Not that crazy, but I have literally never even met a single person who does this let alone knowing tons.
No, it's not hyperbole. 5 weeks vacation is the legal minimum, this also includes the right to take 4 contiguous weeks in the summer.
At my last employer, I had 6 weeks paid vacation per year, that's 4 in the summer, 1-2 weeks around the Christmas holidays, and a couple of extra days here and there if needed. Most people spent their vacations like that.
There's also something called the "industrial vacation", where related manufacturing industries coordinate the 4-week legal right, which typically results in everyone in that sector taking July off.
In Southern Europe, the same thing happens in August, it's very common that people simply take the entire month off.
> I don't know anyone who's been on leave for more than 3 weeks as a single block.
I don't know if this is a Norway exclusive thing or if some other countries have similar laws aswell, but we have the right to take three continuous weeks of vacation during summer. You don't have to take the continuous weeks, but in my experience most people do
This article goes ham on the rule of threes, it does the "not just x, but y" cliche, em-dash with spaces on either side, bold heading-sentence paragraphs, it visibly has hallmarks of AI driven writing.
If you personally can't tell then just say that rather than casting aspersions on everyone else by claiming they can't.
I have noticed the same uptick in bot-like behaviour there. The part I struggle to square is, why so much of it is so useless?
It's maybe account laundering, but on any popular post you'll see at least half of the comments are tangential at best. They're not an expression of anything a person would express, like replying with just skull emojis to a random news post, or saying "he really said" with an exact word to word recreation of a throwaway quote from a video. No one ever replies to these posts, they get like 2 upvotes (if that), the platform doesn't reward them at all but they constantly appear in a very artificial looking way.
> No, it's the ultra authoritarian government stopping you from viewing it.
Wish people wouldn't keep repeating this, imgur block the UK because they were caught with GDPR violations.
The fact their UK wide IP block came in around the same time as the online safety act is the only reason they can continue to quietly pretend it's the government's fault. Imgur is the reason you can't view imgur, it is not the UK Govt (this time)
This system totally works so long as you can take time off work to form a lobbying group -- this does not pass the sniff test to me.
Reminder that even in the scenario that constituents 100% support or 100% reject a policy, their opinions hold almost no statistical sway to their elected representative. It's actually worse than a coin flip.
It's only when you restrict your constituent demographic to just those in the top 10% of wealth (...like a professor in college for example...) that suddenly their voting decisions align to constituent opinions.
Look up "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens", this has been known for some time.
On the topic of HN users, is it our collective first day on earth?
reply