theragu40

I'm so confused. Whose dishwashers are you talking about? I'm in the US, you're describing every dishwasher I've ever had, except that we always hook it up to the hot water line. Our unit takes very little water, it takes hours to run a load due to efficiency features. It has a heating element inside to take whatever water it gets and keep it hot for the cycle.

I don't really see why it's any less efficient to use the hot water we are already heating with our water heater (which heats much more efficiently than a small electric heater would). The water originally arrives to my house cold, it has to be heated one way or another. My dishwasher is less than 10 feet away from my water heater, water is not losing appreciable heat on the way to the dishwasher.

Up to* $2k. Just for the sake of clarity.

The tax credit is 30% of the total project price, up to $2k. If the HPWH is over double the cost of NG, you're still paying quite a bit more even with the tax credit.

Man I haven't thought about kkrieger in a looooong time. Thanks for that!

I agree though. I think it's been happening for years. Hardware has gotten so fast compared to where we were a few years ago. But it hasn't caused rapid innovation like everyone thought it would. It's just made devs lazy and we get massive unoptimized piles of shit released that take hundreds of gigs of space, require 8gb of vram and 16gb of RAM and still run like trash.

I'd love to see another era where we have game developers truly innovating and really trying to get the most out of hardware but I wonder if things have gotten so complicated that those days are gone.

I think colloquially people have begun expanding use of the word to include anything where features or product are removed but the price stays the same.

Maybe there's a better word for that, but I understand the parallel.

I've just started dipping my toes back into the waters again too, also after many years of downloading absolutely nothing. It's a combo of things prompting me.

First, costs have gotten out of control and prices just keep creeping up. This is happening at the same time as content libraries per service dwindle. I make more money than I used to, yet it feels like it goes not nearly as far these days with prices of everything skyrocketing.

Second, it's becoming a bigger and bigger pain in the ass to find things. Part of the issue for me is interfaces (though I can get around that, generally). Part is content shuffling from one service to the next. But a big issue is all the trash content companies like Netflix are shitting out to pad their libraries. You have to wade through oceans of garbage to find a single thing worth your time. This experience is exactly why I dropped traditional cable years ago! I hate endless filler trash. I don't want the illusion of a large library to make it seem like I'm getting value. I just want actual good content.

I totally get wanting to play the game when it's fresh. You miss out on being part of the buzz of a new game if you wait to play it. Every gaming site is full of memes about a new game for the first few months after release and it's definitely part of the experience to be on the "in" side of that.

With that said, I just pick and choose which games matter to me for that nowadays, and I commit myself to actually beating the games I buy (assuming I don't hate them). Committing to beating them before buying a new game has really cut back on my buying of new games only to have it languish in my backlog and see price drops before I ever play it.

This way I do get to be part of that community for the games that really matter to me, but I also am not just buying everything out there at full price.

I don't think this conversation is happening in good faith. I wish you the best.

But surely some land or homes have more desirable features? Should an acre of beautiful lakefront property command the same value as a dirt lot next to a dirty industrial park?

Either way, let's say your idea for how land and homes should be valued is executable in the real world. I still don't understand why acknowledging the way things are in reality as things stand right now is the same as normalizing it. Ignoring something doesn't get it changed.

So what is your contention? That people should just say that land doesn't cost what it actually costs? I don't understand.

Is it normalizing? Or just pointing out how things are today?

It's possible to describe reality without approving of it.

I don't like that lakefront property is so expensive, but it surely is. I've been casually looking for years and I don't know if I'll ever afford it. And the headline is complaining about a shed selling for $225k when it's pretty obviously the land and lakefront access that comes with it that is selling for that amount. The structure is a throw in and there's a good chance whoever buys it simply demolishes it to build what they want.

Fully agree with you on artists not getting their fair share, and I would argue that the issue is sadly endemic across the entire music industry and was that way long before streaming services even existed. Spotify is merely the most visible representation of a long festering issue that spans generations.

I can only speak for myself but I do actually still buy CDs for bands I really like. I will also occasionally buy merch or go to shows. Some of these bands I very certainly would never have discovered without Spotify (or a service like it).

Ultimately I agree that I'd like people to understand their options. I think the biggest likely barrier is convenience. I have a NAS server, and a virtual host set up that runs a Linux server with Plex on it, and I have that open so I can use Plexamp to play live albums or any other stuff I own that isn't on Spotify. But like... That's a massive barrier to entry to simply create something close to the experience Spotify offers out of the box. And it's definitely not as polished. I do it because I'm a hobbyist, but most people aren't like that. So then if you want to buy music individually, you're stuck listening to actual physical CDs, or ripping them and loading them on your phone or mp3 player. Old school cool for sure, but new school convenience is sure hard to beat once you've had a taste.

This is your rationale and that is ok for you. Ownership is important to you. That is ok. But people who make the point you are making never understand the point those of us who like Spotify are making.

We do not care that we don't own anything after paying. I am not paying to own it. Never felt like I was, never felt like I needed to. In fact, it's almost a perk that I don't because then I am not sitting amidst towers of CDs (something that was definitely possible if I had continued my pre-spotify trajectory). Anyway, I pay for access. No more, no less. I pay for access to Spotify's library, which is many orders of magnitude larger than anything I could ever hope to amass myself, even if I was pirating shit.

I want to listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, instantly. I don't want to go pirate it, I don't want to go find it at a store, if someone suggests me a song or album or artist I want to go listen to it right now. Spotify enables that. I have discovered so much music I would absolutely never have tried without Spotify.

And again, I am 100% comfortable paying for access to something not owned by me. I'm a member at our local zoo. I don't expect to own the animals, I pay to just to get in. I'm a member at our museum. I don't feel like I should own the artifacts, I pay for the privilege of seeing them. I am a member at a community pool. I don't own the water, I pay to get in, and have someone else handle all the hassle of maintaining that pool.

Spotify is the exact same for me.