I’m sorry if I sound condescending, but in this case, yes, it is a bit weird. The base game is aimed at new customers, the DLC at repeat customers. The base game has to sound good to someone who might buy it, the DLC has to sound good to people who play the game. These are not the same markets, and the value propositions do not look the same.
I wouldn’t say so, I’d estimate $2-3/h for reading (just took an average of my last kindle purchases and reading time), reading stuff online could be virtually free though (except device and ISP subscription fees), but is that what you meant? I guess libraries have books “for free” but to be fair you’d have to do some reverse calculation on your tax to the local community.
Trekking (which I interpret as hiking with tent and similar gear) implies gear which easily is north of $1000, which requires quite a lot of time spend. I’m just estimating now, I think I’ve spent north of $3000 on outdoor stuff (tents, backpacks, hiking boots etc) and I’ve spent roughly a year outdoors with my gear, which comes down to approx $10/day, not counting consumables. So for the sake of argument, could we agree that trekking is $0.5/h for equipment and perhaps $0.5/h extra for food (compared to eating at home, since you eat differently and and if you are going for freeze dry food it is even more)?
My point is just that there are usually a lot of costs you don’t think about associated with everything, for example apartment rent normally being in the $1-4/h interval (by owning it is ofc possible to lower it).
Of course you can! That is the point of money and the idea of a price! Except the objective value there, but I’m unsure of which part of the transaction you gather has objective value.
To not compare is the TV shop argument, just buy it, on a whim. Don’t think about what it is actually worth to you, the buyer (if you don’t the seller usually wins, because he has thought about how much value he captures). What else it is possible to get for that money? What difference would it make in a retirement fund over 40+ years?
Why would you compare a Granny Smith with a Red Delicious for price comparisons? What would it tell you if they had the same price? Or a different price? Those two markets are close and exposed to the same market dynamics (like weather in similar locations, geography, gas-prices, season, etc), look elsewhere for comparison, for example the conserved apples or different fruits with other cycles (such as oranges). Or perhaps ice-cream?
I’m sorry if I sounded smug, but that does not mean I’m wrong. I mean, most scientific fields are to a large extent exposed to the above dilemma of dynamic forces? Why do you think we are stuck with theories of dark energy, dark matter, super-symmetry, string theory, gravity, etc, how come we have not proven any of those yet? Simply put, dark matter is the easy fix for general relativity, since then we don’t have to say that general relativity got something wrong (for example how quantum gravity behaves or if the equivalence principle actually holds under all conditions), and politicians won’t have to defend spending billions of $ on theories which still lack empirical evidence (for example, check entropic gravity and quantised inertia, two other theories on how gravity works, which do away with the, frankly quite silly, assumption that gravity has to be a fundamental force).
Society by and large is guided by these social streams, you can call them paradigms, thought collectives, epistemic communities, core sets, herd behaviour, or whatever social constructivist term you fancy, but they do guide the evolution of society. And what made my blood boil with the earlier posts was the norm behaviour around computer game prices (i.e. entertainment pricing) rather than a rational one.
Please do, it carries more meaning than you might think, for example that capitalism only works as long as people uphold the principles, such as making informed and rational decisions about purchases and plan their lives accordingly (by and large capitalism fails when people stop thinking and communism fails when governments don’t act in the best interest of the people, perhaps some mix would be useful?). This is one of those formulations which you laugh at when you see it, but down the line hits you like a truck when you understand what the author was actually getting at.
See the paragraph above, capitalism fails when thought collectives, or herd behaviour, trumps logical thinking and individual reasoning. And that was the behaviour I witnessed in this thread which made me very upset.
