It can be it's own "adventure" just to go to the movies and pick something that's playing. You can end up seeing a movie you wouldn't have because you didn't spend 20 minutes reading the negative reviews of and it turns out to be fun.
I discovered a lot of new things by being forced to make choices from limited set of options.
The article doesn't specify that and the quote is an offhand remark from the farmer himself. I read that more as "... and it cost me $120" as if that was the bill he paid at the end.
However, it is unclear but I think my point still stands, a $120 piece of electronics is an order of magnitude less than a $1000 non-electronic, non-mechanical oil filter.
That price is absurdly exaggerated and the part is also misleading (an oil filter).
> "The tech came out and it took him a couple hours to diagnose that there was one small sensor out. And that one small sensor, I think it was a $120 part."
Two hours of labor to diagnose and then however long the replacement took + the cost of the part. $120 doesn't seem overpriced for that.
The time it must take to get a limited pool of technicians to drive out (40 miles) and do that work is probably the real issue. The price seems completely reasonable.
I agree that right-to-repair should be a thing but you're grossly exaggerating the situation.
> Imagine, for example, needing to pay $1000 to replace an oil filter because you needed to buy the official John Deere oil filter and have the John Deere technician drive out to install it and flash the tractor to start up with the new filter.
Yes, "People aren't literally starving" is incredible progress for humanity. Progress which has coincided with the incredible wealth creation (not transfer, those things are different) of modern times.
Would you prefer to go back to a time were people were literally starving?
As a not libertarian, it's pretty simple. Look at Patagonia[1] for how the free market addresses this issue. If people care, markets will cater to them.
The point is that this method of grift isn't new or partisan. The magnitude is what is new.
Government contracts have been awarded to people with connections since forever. It's absolutely nothing new. There's just no fog leaf now, Trump skips the part where he's pretending it was a fair bidding process.
You must have missed the Chevron doctrine case where the supreme court took much of the ability for Congress to give away their power to the executive in the guise of creating agencies.
> Or the public could accept a reduction in their standard of living, but that’s likely not happening without a civil war.
I suspect what we'll actually do is what we always do. Innovate our way into a higher standard of living while simultaneously elevating the poorest people out of poverty and finding novel ways to feed, clothe and house our population.
It's funny how persistent malthusians are in the face of evidence to the contrary.
The intuitive part comes when comparing two options.
If you use 20 instead of 10, you'll be exposed to half as much UV even though it's only an additional 5% of protection.
The number could just be the percentage of exposure (5 v 10) and express the same relationship but the denominator has the advantage of bigger numbers being more protective while still being more intuitively comparable.
Many people would see 90% vs 95% and not intuit that it's twice the protection.
It's contextual depending on which end of the probability is the desired outcome.
SPF is like this. SPF 30 allows 1/30th (3%) of the UV through it, blocking 29/30ths (97%). SPF 50 (2%) allows 1/50th, blocking 49/50ths (98%). Using the denominator, in this case, expressed the efficacy much more intuitively.
Comparing SPF 30 vs 50 better expresses the increase in efficacy than 97% vs 98% does.
One could also express it as the amount that passes the filter but it is Sun _Protection_ Factor not Sun _Transparency_ Factor.
All while getting cheaper in the process. Thanks capitalism!