To be fair, this may be about as well as a run would go for me if I tried.

True, but it’s at least a rough indicator, and having intact concrete pricing from back then was a bit challenging, and sears catalog came to me as a very well preserved source of vaguely appropriate pricing.

To provide a relatively decent source: https://christmas.musetechnical.com/ShowCatalog/1997-Sears-Christmas-Book

Around page 286. So 1997 christmas season, Starfox and Goldeneye going for $80… FFVII for $60…

N64 had the challenge that every single game was a circuitboard, so that inflated costs. Nowadays the price is for just the right to download a copy.

Yeah, AAA productions:

• Must be multiplayer, ostensibly because people ‘demand’ it, but a narrative easy to believe when you know players are stuck with your servers and you can effectively shut down the game when it no longer makes money for you.
• Relatively fewer games to be made, no chances may be taken. Conventional wisdom tells them that people got over turn-based in the 90s, so even the FFVII remake refused to do real turn-based, while Clair Obscur showed that it was still absolutely welcome gameplay.

To be fair, if a left winger got endorsed by Vance, that would pretty much also kill their political career.

Vance’s status as poison is a universal thing for the entire political spectrum.

Makes sense, but what about your shoes?

Problem is that is what the insider traders are counting on. They know it is going to happen, it’s planned to happen and the odds reflect that. So a few million folks toss in a couple of bucks and the insiders cash in.

Outsiders can’t be 100% sure that it’s a planned event so they don’t take the terrible odds and the insiders don’t have to split things.

Yep, when I was a kid I remember people grousing about how stuff used to last forever and now it doesn’t. 20 years later, I got to hear people talk about how stuff made when I was a kid used to last forever but now it doesn’t. Now I get to hear how stuff made 20 years ago used to last forever but now it doesn’t.

Every time something breaks, someone points to something 20 years old that didn’t break and forget all the stuff that did break.

Of course, the practice of repair was different when the appliance costed relatively a lot more.

E.g. a TV was more likely to be repaired, but also costed about 10x as much relatively speaking.

So if it would have cost you 25% of the price of a TV to get it repaired, you would have got it repaired. If it’s just as easy to repair now, then the repair would still be over twice the price of just buying new.

It said right in your quote that people do work that “no one volunteers to do”. If they aren’t volunteering, then something is providing the impetus.

Broadly the writing avoids the more difficult nuance of how the community gets unplesant work to be “shared” when no one volunteers. This suggests enforcement one way or another.

At small scale of a commune, some pretty human interactions can probably serve to drive this in a pretty reasonable way, by instilling sense of duty and comradery and potentially shame inherent to everyone knowing everyone else in a nuanced way. As you scale up, when inevitably people start losing track of each other, those soft mechanisms deteriorate, and the systems start to develop cracks for exploitation. Capitalism breaks in some ways, other systems break down in others. Fundamentally human behavior when interaction becomes diluted at scale tends to suck.

allocating a few days a month to all fit members of a community to do work which no one volunteers to do.

Ok, this basically sums up the answer: the community forces labor one way or another. What is the enforcement, carrot vs. stick for making people do their fair share. How do you reward people for doing unwanted work? How do you deal with someone refusing to do it, or “maliciously complying” and doing it terribly to make the job easier and/or get out of doing it again in the future?

So the agreement is that there is work that needs some external impetus to happen, because not every job has enough people intrinsically interested or civic minded to make it happen. The question becomes which solutions manage to be more fair than others? For unskilled and unwanted jobs, the current answer has a lower class overworked because they are the most desperate, and that’s bad. A forced labor system might manage to distribute the burden more fairly, though thanks to people being crap it’s likely for a system set up to do that to be abused to overwork some demonized demographic, ending in a similar outcome a different way.

Whatever the case is, it’s not as rosy as “people freely work on wikipedia and programming, therefore people will freely work on anything society may want or need”

This is unfortunately a bit naive, that for every problem no one wants to do there’s a solution that people both want and can create.

If you want to dismiss excessive waste as a failing of society, we can speak of work like line men who repair power infrastructure. It’s not super engaging work.

Problem being the jobs that don’t inspire passion, curiosity, and purpose, but we still need them to get done.

Alternative motivation may be viable and in fact drive better results when feasible. You find the right person with the right passion who wants to do the job.

Problem is not every sort of job can pull that off. You aren’t going to find enough sewage treatment enthusiasts to handle that demand. You aren’t going to have enough line men to keep the grid going reliably and safely.

Now let’s discuss all the people eager to volunteer to work sewage treatment plants.

The proportion of people with more innate motivation versus need for a job to be done varies wildly between jobs.

But when someone approaches work with innate motivation, amazingly better stuff happens compared to people in it just for the paycheck.

I think you are on to something, but I’d say it actually largely deflates the ‘people didn’t vote and if they had, maybe the outcome would have been different’ narrative.

“Did not vote” rules in non-swing states. I wager that, for example, most people didn’t vote in california not because they see their candidate as a lost cause, but because they know “their” candidate has carried the state for sure.

So in a shift to proportional electoral vote or popular vote, you’d probably get a lot more voters engaged in California, Hawaii, NY, and pick up democrat votes but you’d also get more red voters from Alaska, Texas, Utah, Kansan, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabamba, Tennesse… etc… I’m not sure which group manages to bring out more non-voters in that scenario…

“I’ve delayed the deadline to let the very promising peace talks that are definitely real and not at all made up proceed”

You know it’s bad when the last message is essentially “we are just going to stop talking publicly about it”

Sure, but this comic is in English…

Dating fine, but if going for a long term commitment, it may be rough to be in your 60s with a partner in their 80s. They have to understand if they are theoretically on that path and that their relationship will transform into elder care at some point. Also before that the older one will stop keeping up sexually.

If both see it as a short term fling, probably ok. The 46 year can probably keep up with a 25 year old in the ways that matter, and may have enough money for some interesting experiences to share.