For a brief moment, that car becomes worth a lot more. But as other manufacturers put FSD-capable vehicles on the road, values might in fact fall as overall capacity skyrockets. What is certain is that the cost of a ride will drop.
I think some part of the luxury experience is the intentionality involved in buying a physical magazine.
I’ve been a subscriber to a number of publications that might be considered luxury media - think the Financial Times, Times Literary Supplement, and New York Review of Books, and more popular (“middlebrow”) titles like the Economist and New Yorker. In almost every case where there wasn’t some utilitarian value proposition, I found myself opening the covers (or apps) less and less over time while still getting unreasonably excited when buying single issues at airport newsstands and such.
Buying things makes us feel good. Intentionally purchasing a magazine also gives us time to dig into other rituals we like. It spreads the cognitive load of information gathering we do all the time: We've bought into the PoV of editors and designers who crafted the experience and got our attention. They're now curators of our filter for as long as they deliver on the promise we bought into at the newsstand. We've got more cycles to enjoy and ingest/digest/synthesize what's been put together for us.
What’s the best course of action for you/the person being impersonated, if the platform doesn’t fix the (systemic) problem? Put up a big notice on LinkedIn declaring that you are not on these platforms?
This is pretty true throughout Asia. Bangkok’s probably best for western food. But nothing like NY.
SG has a few decent options once you get over the fact that you’re paying four times the price for a slice of pizza (or, god forbid, cote de boeuf). Ironically the best Cantonese food (IMHO) is in the American club.
Having lived in both New York and Singapore, I can’t say I’d recommend Singapore to anyone who loves NY for the aspects you mention (but there are other reasons to love SG!). I think the scale of opportunities for recreation, arts, and really just a diversity of experience is vastly different. In APAC, I’d suggest Hong Kong (where I’ve also lived) instead, though that is even more like London than NY.
Yeah, HK is (or was) way better than SG, and much more NY-like. Even more beautiful than NY, actually. HK's inevitable destruction by the CCP is a fucking tragedy. There are very few cities in the world like that.
I think the distinction is semantic. The customer is paying for a feature set and usable spec which he receives. It’s not as if the customer pays some price expecting to use the heated seats and doesn’t get to do so.
There’s an argument that this unnecessarily reduces everyone’s fuel efficiency due to the greater weight of the hardware, etc., but again this is more or less already captured in the advertised spec.
But not the Bill of Materials, upon which the price is ultimately decided.
What I mean to say is that a customer who chooses a spec that does not include heated seats, is supplied and charged for hardware that is not required in the spec.
If only. Noise cancelling headphones can block out droning sounds but are limited to their passive isolation when it comes to voices, especially higher pitched ones. A few years ago I was positioned close to a woman who was always on the phone talking loudly with vendors and there was nothing I could do aside from risking hearing damage to make that disappear. And now, while it's better since I'm not near her anymore, it's still tough when multiple conversations are going on around me all at once.
I think there is an inherent tension between the two ideas in that a lottery is, fundamentally, one profiting at the expense of (a consenting) many, while UBI guarantees a baseline state for many without particularly disadvantaging any one.
Some might consider UBI an implementation of John Rawls' Difference principle [0], that distributive inequalities should work to the advantage of the worst-off. Lotteries would support utilitarians' counterargument that one may very well prefer to roll the dice on his or her welfare, rather than accept a guaranteed, minimally satisfactory baseline.
Unfortunately, the writing here presents scant literary values to support its own message. This is itself an example of writing that could have better been conveyed as three bullet points on a powerpoint slide. It’s “three things not to do”, not any one compelling reason to write (e.g., because it’s a transcendental experience and illustrating why that is).
“You don’t have to be crazy to enjoy Wagner, but it helps” because he was mad, his greatest supporters were mad, and his fanbase remains obsessive if not mad :)
