So in the case of the emails, where there is plenty of context, it’s not an issue. Right?

Both are true. Manufacturing costs went down significantly, but non-smart TVs are now more expensive than equivalent smart TVs by over $100 from what I have seen.

Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.

The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with.

Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:

The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.

Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn’t and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.

One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.

Funnily enough, indoors, this would probably make you more visible as the only area with no reflections. Stealth works outdoors because the sky does not have a radar return.

“Identify” seems like a very misleading word in this context. Isn’t it just detecting and locating? Or am I misunderstanding and they can tell me and my roommate appart?

There is another potential issue, which is the frequency. The lower the frequency, the less it will interact with an obstacle including people.

No I didn’t.

no. What you describe is just one form of the fallacy. Sunk cost fallacy in general is when you include a sunk cost in your decision making process at all, instead of just considering the costs and benefits that are affected by the decision at present.

The part I quoted is the fallacy. You wrote you will stop using it when it is unusable, not when it is inferior to Jellyfin. Maybe you were thinking something different, but we can’t read your mind. We can only read what you wrote and what you wrote is a sunk cost fallacy.

Not sure if you’re trolling or you just had a brain-fart 🤔 Happens sometimes. Maybe think about it a little more.

You’re right, but I don’t care if they switch honestly. I used that wording because of the “anything else is stupid” statement, which just irked me when paired with the obvious fallacy.

It was just a reaction to the “anything else is stupid” statement paired with the fallacy. I wouldn’t use that phrasing otherwise.

I paid for it, I’ll use it. When it is unusable I’ll bail. Anything else is stupid.

What you are saying is called sunk cost fallacy. A notoriously common stupid way of thinking.

The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.

Imagine how much more productive we’d be if everyone actually had any reason to give a shit about their company.

First of all, this is very questionable, since data from companies that overpaid/indulged their employees like Google and other tech companies in the past did not really see much increase in productivity as far as I can tell.

Second of all, pressure on wages is different. Hence my referral to minimal wages etc. In a sense, a boss is indeed not incentivised to increase productivity if all the gains go to employees anyway, but this is one special edge case. As you say, a majority of productivity gains come from automation improvements and other kinds of innovation and process optimization, where the incentives do apply.

You are reversing cause and effect. Productivity is rarely affected by bottom level employees to a significant extent these days. That is why there is no pressure for wages to keep up. Your own graph proves productivity is going up despite your claim of unmotivated employees.

Depends on your definition of solve. There is no mechanism directly within capitalism to solve negative externalities that appear in capitalism once they appear. You need government regulations via democracy or another external force to step in and resolve them. That is why the increasing influence of corporations on politics is so harmful.

But capitalism allows fewer negative externalities to appear. Let me give you an example for the worker owned factory. The elected leaders incentive is not to lead a productive factory. It is to be popular and win elections. So what happens when a role becomes obsolete. Perhaps you no longer need a person to stand in an elevator and operate it for people, since it can be automated. But firing people or retraining them for different role is unpopular, so the boss is incentivised to keep elevator operators. This means these people are not allowed to find jobs that are actually productive in improving the standards of living for everyone. People don’t like being fired when their position becomes obsolete but it is necessary to develop economies and advance civilization.

Another example is investment. When the factory has surplus profit, should he increase the wages of the employees immediately or invest the money into improving the productivity by buying better equipment or building another factory site? What about maintenance? Should he increase wages and delay the maintenance until it is someone else’s problem? Which will be more popular? By the way, this delayed maintenance issue is why public infrastructure is crumbling almost everywhere, since that is overseen by democratically elected leaders.

Capitalism prevents these issues from happening in the first place, since the owner gets a share of the factory output. He is incentivised to make the factory productive. And everyone below the owner is incentivised to help the owner increase productivity since the owner ultimately decides if they are fired or get raises and bonuses. This tends to fall apart when you have short term investors or reintroduce elections of CEO via shareholders. This is why privately owned companies like steam, costco, etc. are usually so much better and rarely get enshitified compared to corporations.

I am not saying this is not an issue, but it feels like the article is at best misunderstanding what sovereign cloud brings even with an ME backdoor under it and how international relations work.

How do externalities turn communist revolutions into authoritarian regimes?

This is an incredibly complex topic and depends somewhat on your exact setup of revolution and regime.

Let me give another example of negative externalities to at least vaguely illustrate: corruption. It’s the exact same mechanism. The person receiving a bribe benefits from the bribe, but the cost (harm) is usually paid by their employer or society.

For a news agency, a negative externality may be to intentionally spread incorrect information and propaganda. So as an exercise, try to think of the incentives of a news organization in capitalism when it is privately owned and anyone with money can start a competing news agency and in communism, where some kind of political organ (elected or named by elected officials) decides the news agencies funding and if resources are allocated to create a competitor.

Economic and political systems are about incentives. The more the incentives of individual people are aligned with the incentives of society as a whole, the better the system.

I am pretty sure what you are trying to talk about is called negative externalities. A negative externality is simply put a cost (harm) that a company inflicts on others and does not have to “pay for” itself. E.g. destroying the environment. The issue is that negative externalities don’t just apply to companies and capitalism. They are also what turns communist revolutions into authoritarian regimes. Dealing with them (or realistically minimizing their impact) is an incredibly complex subject. Trying to say we should solve it by getting rid of billionaires is like saying we should solve global warming by dropping ice cubes into the ocean.

You know, there is nothing wrong with not knowing how investments and markets (stock, commodity, …) help direct the economy. It’s a complex topic that most people really don’t need to understand for their lives. But confidently claiming they do nothing just because you don’t know is ridiculous…