CookieOfFortune

joined 2 years ago
[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago

At least anecdotally, I’ve seen it happen multiple times. There’s this subset in the dating pool who want to give meeting with other women a try.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

Wouldn’t Wozniak be an obvious choice?

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Yeah the phantom might not be a good choice since its price varies hugely based on customization and didn’t have a MSRP. I was looking at the Phantom V though which was produced in the 60s.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Outside of issues caused by Ticketmaster, there’s also just a lot more people who want to see only a few performers. It seems like there’s always a couple of names that are so overwhelmingly popular. Add to that the ease at which people can travel hundreds of miles, and your demand outpaces supply.

Property costs are probably the biggest factor that is affected by a larger population. We’ve got more people but everyone still wants to live in the same areas (and we’re bad at increasing the density of housing in these areas).

Yeah the pricing of cars has really expanded. It used to be $1000-10,000 covered basically all the new cars in 1960. Now it’s closer to $10,000-$10,000,000. Although I wonder if the distribution actually looks about the same.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (5 children)

Cars are an interesting example since even a cheap car today is significantly better in almost every way than the best car from the 60s.

However the very good cars have gotten much more expensive. So while we’ve been able to do more with less, we’re also doing A LOT more at the higher end.

For example, a Rolls Royce Phantom from the 60s was $6-8000. A new Nissan Versa for $20,000 is faster, more fuel efficient, safer. Maybe the leather in the Rolls-Royce is better.

My point is that it’s difficult to compare what you can buy over time since what is produced changes as well.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

lol so they can’t see anything outside the orbit. Just put a camera there.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How would our satellites detect something outside normal orbits?

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

They could easily send the signals away from us. How would we detect something like that?

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

A bunch of Uber’s do too. Unless it’s your own car there really isn’t an expectation of privacy.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Probably because it’s too cheap and primitive? Why use something not specially used to spy on people when you already have significantly designed satellites with a bigger budget and better technology?

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Interesting. I’ve never met anyone who has a preference prefer corn syrup. Everyone who cared is into the real maple syrup.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Is the second cut from another time? There’s clearly snow on the ground.

 
view more: next ›