Some IT guy, IDK.

  • 0 Posts
  • 474 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle

  • I learned all about this in “thinking fast and slow” by Daniel Kahneman. He talks about system 1 and system 2, where system 1 is your kind of knee-jerk reaction to a thing (thinking fast), and system 2 is the contemplative and careful consideration of a thing (thinking slow).

    I would argue that some people overly leverage system 1 (thinking fast) because it’s generally easier, and takes less time and mental effort to do. Those that either can’t, or are unwilling to engage system 2 in their day to day activities, will 100% fall for these kinds of misleading prices, since system 1 is cutting so many corners so that it can be fast and efficient (mostly on how much energy is used), that it skips a lot of the cognitive steps and goes right to the (often incorrect) conclusion. That $19.99 is $19 (or $10 in some cases).

    In the book, they discuss that system 1 often gives the wrong information that is later rejected by system 2 when further consideration is given to a particular input/stimulus.

    If someone isn’t engaging system 2 as a check to ensure system 1 isn’t lying to them, then shit like $19.99 seems cheaper than $20. It doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny, but they’re not targeting thoughtful people with these practices. For thoughtful people, there’s functionally no difference between $19.99 and $20.

    Yes, the difference is one cent, but given that one cent is so worthless in today’s society, to the point that Canada stopped making one cent coins (and other countries have done so as well), there’s functionally no difference between the prices.

    One cent is only worth anything if it is combined with many other cents. The sum of those pennies becomes valuable when you conglomerate enough of them.



  • The science is about how you initially react to the number. Your brain will see $19, and immediately you’ll think it’s $19. Only upon further inspection and processing through your cognition, you recognise that its $19.99, which is basically $20.

    It’s that initial reaction they want, to grab your attention. Anyone who is going through life without leveraging their higher thinking will fall for this shit. Anyone who thinks, at all, won’t.

    Unfortunately, there’s a nontrivial number of people who fall into that first category. People who were never taught to think. They just do.


  • The owners of the legislature don’t want that, so it won’t get done.

    The government doesn’t work for you, it works at the behest of those that have long since paid for the “elected” representatives.

    Those people own companies that profit from all the misleading prices and adverts. They don’t have any interest in changing that.



  • Living in Canada, this shit never worked for me.

    Our laws require that pretty much everything is taxed, some more than others, but taxed nonetheless. Despite this, our laws also allow for the tax to be excluded from the price listed for an item, so tax has always been an unpleasant surprise during checkout for me.

    I’m sure many other Canadians can echo my sentiment.

    The fact is, I’m always expecting to pay between 10 and 15% more on pretty much everything when I get to the checkout, so I tend to do math in my head to figure it out. Let’s just say that when I see $4.99, it’s easier for my brain to figure out 10 (or 13%, or 15%) of $5 than it is to figure out the tax on $4.99, so I err higher rather than lower on everything.

    I see $4.99, I think $5 +tax and I figure that will set me back somewhere between $5.50 and $6 at checkout. Doing the math, the current HST tax in Ontario where I am, IIRC is 13%. 13% of $4.99 is $0.6487 (the company will round up to the nearest penny, so 65 cents), which is $5.64. going from $5 at 15% (which is what I’ll do in my head for simplicity), I’d estimate it’s $5.75 at checkout, and get pleasantly surprised when I save 11 cents because the tax was less than I anticipated.

    All of this shit is kind of moot IMO, since I think people aren’t looking at prices nearly as much as they used to. When I was young, debit cards didn’t exist, credit cards were a tedious process of filing out paperwork, and so most of the time people carried cash. It was common for people to add up their costs as they went to ensure that the cash they brought would cover the items they’re buying at the grocery. For smaller transactions like convenience stores, you’d just do it in your head, and for big ticket purchases, like appliances, furniture, vehicles, etc, you’d use cheques or credit cards because the hassle of doing that was outweighed by the liability of carrying thousands of dollars to the store to buy a thing.

    With debit/interac/whatever, and the chip/sign, or chip/pin process (and/or “tap” to pay), you have convenient, and instant access to your entire life savings on a whim with near zero effort or inconvenience. It’s never been so easy to spend money (especially money you don’t have - eg overdraft or credit cards).

    When I started to do my own grocery shopping, sometime after debit/interac/chip&pin was made to be commonplace, I rarely looked at prices. I assumed the price was reasonable for what I was buying, and concerning myself with the nickels and dimes of it all was more effort than I cared to put into buying something I wanted or needed.

    With the prices of everything going haywire in the last 5 years or so, I find myself looking at prices a lot more and going for alternatives to my “usual” brands of products simply due to price alone, especially when grocery shopping. If I can kick my grocery bill from $300 to $250 by simply buying smarter, that’s a cheap date I get to go on with my spouse that I otherwise couldn’t afford. That’s more valuable to me than buying name brand cereal or cans of Campbell’s soup over the store brand.

    IMO, I’m the problem… or rather, my previous mentality was the problem that in part led to the crazy increase in pricing. I didn’t concern myself if something was a cheaper option and just bought whatever I wanted or whatever I was used to buying. I don’t have brand loyalty beyond “this was good/worked in the past, so I’ll buy it again”. That amount of “loyalty” doesn’t extend to significant increases in the price of things. The prices went up and while my grocery bill went up, I didn’t pay much attention to it. That’s just what it cost me. The cost always changed because I wouldn’t always buy the same things, nor the same quantity of things. So I expected it to be fairly random. That created a false loyalty to products that just kept going up in price. I kept paying that because I wasn’t paying attention. So they kept going up because the company didn’t see a drop in sales because of the increase in price.

    Now, I’m much more conscious of what I’m buying. I’ll compare not only the cost, but the quantity of a thing. If I can get 700g of something at $5 but an alternative has 1000g for $6. I’ll get the $6 item, since I’m paying more, for a lot more, therefore I’m paying less per gram. I’ve become the kind of shopper that most companies can’t keep. If prices go up, I’ll jump to another brand that’s cheaper. If the quantity goes down (shrinkflation) I’ll go to a brand that gives me better value for my dollar.

    I’m one step away from cutting coupons here. I’ll do it too.

    At the end of the day, it’s all about economics for me. If it’s going to take me more time to compare, or find coupons, or whatever than I’m saving by doing that, then I won’t do it. Right now, cutting coupons falls below that value line. I put my time ahead of the proposed savings by cutting coupons. My time saved by not doing it, is simply more valuable to me right now. If/when that changes, I’ll start doing it.

    Fuck corporations.









  • That’s a very normal reaction. You’re putting your life in the hands of technicians and engineers, to build, maintain and service the aircraft so it functions, qualified inspectors to certify that the plane is safe to fly, and pilots to fly the aircraft, and you, safely to your destination. Pretty much everyone you’re putting your life in the hands of, you’ve never met, never will, and it’s unlikely you’ll even know their names.

    It’s a lot of trust to put into people you don’t even know, to keep you alive in your chair in the sky.

    If that reality doesn’t at least give you pause, or some concern, then I’d be worried there’s something seriously wrong with you.

    Rest assured that statistics are on your side. It’s far more likely for you to get to your destination without any significant complications then it is for any complications to happen, including any that might lead to a crash or a fatality. Statistically, it’s comfortably one of the safest, if not the safest, method of travel.

    There’s nothing wrong with having some apprehension, fear, or worry, over placing your life in the hands of complete strangers; despite how qualified each and every one of them might be, they’re still strangers.

    All I can say is, if you’re bothered by it, learn how to parachute solo. It’ll take a while, but learn it. Then just pack your own parachute any time you fly. Problem solved. If you lose confidence in the pilots to keep you alive, bail.



  • Not a stupid question.

    Between the training required for a solo parachute jump, and the cost (and more importantly) weight of the equipment, plus the relative safety of commercial flights, it’s simply not justified.

    In more than a few cases we’ve seen airliners make emergency landings that are gnarly, but the majority survive. In more cases than I can count, there’s checks and balances that ground flights because of safety concerns either at the departure point or at the destination (icing, high winds, etc), or due to mechanical concerns.

    It’s rare that a fully inspected and functional aeroplane will fall out of the sky, and we do everything in our power to ensure that all planes that leave the ground are fully inspected and functional. Short of a freak occurrence, like a fast forming weather phenomenon, there’s so many checks and balances that airliner crashes are exceedingly rare.

    So not only is a crash rare, there’s no guarantee that a crash will be fatal, usually the pilot can at least get the plane on the ground without killing everyone aboard, and the fact that it’s a massive amount of extra weight that requires training that the average person doesn’t have, there’s little point and nearly nothing to gain from doing something like that, while it would have significant downsides on flight efficiency and increase the costs of fuel per flight due to the extra weight.

    Then there’s the consideration of, even if they were able to successfully parachute to the ground, what then? It’s pretty much a guarantee that nobody has a radio, and that you’re far enough away from civilization that your cellphone doesn’t work, so now you have hundreds of people spread out over potentially thousands of miles of terrain/water/whatever that you now need weeks to search and rescue everyone. Taking weeks on search and rescue, pretty much guarantees that you’ll find people who landed safely, then died from exposure to the environment.

    On the flip side, if everyone is in the plane when it crashes then all you need to do is find the plane; everyone will be in that general area, whether alive or dead.

    There’s just too many downsides to having parachutes on board to make it feasible.




  • My confusion on the last sentence is with the inclusion of both “still” and “always”.

    Either one would make sense and give flavor to the post about what you’re talking about.

    “It still worked” meaning the TV/controller worked after being thrown around, a astute commentary about the durability of controllers and TVs compared to the original consoles.

    “It always worked” seems to imply that doing this ritual completed the objective of calming the rage.

    Both is just confusing me