Many of my happiest moments in life have been at the park, for free, with friends and family.
You don’t need to be retired or a millionaire to be happy. Nor is being retired or a millionaire any guarantee of happiness.
Saving for retirement is just about making sure your needs are met when your health starts to decline and you may no longer be able to work. If you’ve got a little extra saved to travel around the world or whatever, even better. It’s important, but don’t wait until retirement to be happy. There’s no guarantee you’ll even live that long, for starters.
My mother still clips coupons in the Sunday newspaper, despite being financially well-off enough to not clip coupons. I considered listing this as an example of maladaptive frugality in another post, but then I figured it’s just something she enjoys doing.
Honestly in current state of world. Which is more enjoyment clipping coupons or looking for bargains or being on social media? Would something actually useful or more enjoyable happen with that time?
Hell. Even other type of media consumption unless you really enjoy it might be balance you can question.
For sure it's more common for people not to save enough. But for people who are frugal and save diligently for most of their lives, there often comes a point where they cross a threshold where they have met all of their financial goals, and the "problem" is no longer how save money but to enjoy spending it. And this can be a real challenge for people who have built up deeply ingrained saving habits.
My mother, for example, refuses to replace her iPhone SE with something with a larger screen despite 1) having failing vision and difficulty reading the screen, 2) using her iPhone every day, 3) easily being able to afford it. The idea of spending $1,000 on a phone is just something she is unable to bring herself to do, even though I think it would help alleviate a real source of frustration in her life.
My father, when he started shopping for his most recent car (and probably his final car), set out with the intent to buy a luxury car. But again, despite being able to easily afford one, all he was able to bring himself to buy was a well-equipped Toyota. Don't get me wrong - it's a great car and has served him incredibly well. But it makes me a little sad that he wasn't able to bring himself to finally treat himself to a luxury car after a lifetime of hard work and saving. They did a lot of long road trips together in that car in retirement, and I think they would have enjoyed something a bit more luxurious (though on the other hand, the reliability of the Toyota is not to be discounted).
I think what you're attributing to frugality might be a more a matter of age? Many older folks are just wary of change.
I'm not that old, but every time I upgrade my PC or phone, some of my workflows break and I need to pointlessly re-learn things I'd rather not re-learn. UI buttons get moved around, icons change, some settings are removed and others are added... this was exciting the first ten or twenty times, but it's just tiring now.
Basically, I'm at this stage in life where my reaction to systemd wasn't "oh wow, this is progress" but "ugh, I need to learn how to start, stop, or modify services again". In another ten years, I'll probably just say "no, I'm not doing this again, just let me use my old computer for as long as possible".
> my reaction to systemd wasn't "oh wow, this is progress" but "ugh, I need to learn how to start, stop, or modify services again"
I must be young at heart while >60 years old; my reaction was "why is everybody whining about it, it's pretty nice, I like it". Same with jj vs git, jj is amazing!
It's definitely varies by person. I'm much more like the GP where relearning how to do basic things I already know how to do is one of the absolute last things I want to spend my time on, but I know plenty of people who are the opposite. Newness and novelty are genuine features for some, and that's totally fine.
The annoying thing is that the latter group is over-represented in tech and a lot of core products like phones force people into that path. Most of the non-tech people I know couldn't care less about the latest iphone/android update,they just want the damn buttons to stay the same so they can do the stuff they were doing yesterday. But the only two phone platforms both change their UX regularly and users just have to go along with it.
I am with you on UI updates, just moving things around and re-skinning the UI without useful functionality additions make me mad often. But then I grind my teeth and bear it.
Lots of discussions on HN about it recently [1], [2], I heard of it right here. It works on git repositories, so it's very easy to try.
For me, the killer feature is updating some commit deep inside some feature branch, and all child commits and branches get auto-updated, no more faffing with endless rebases. Also conflict handling is so much more pleasant than git's.
Possibly there’s an element to this. The iPhone SE still has the home button, which may have been a factor when she bought it. And my father was a bit put off by some of the bells and whistles on luxury cars.
When I started driving my car had vinyl seats that you had to peel yourself out of on a hot day, a plastic steering wheel that you could barely touch when the sun was out, hand wound windows, fixed seat belts and a handbrake that barely worked.
Even the cheapest car on the market feels luxurious now.
In comparison the difference between a Toyota and a Lexus is marginal.
Expensive cars are mostly about status signalling, we are long past good enough.
I'm perhaps pathologically frugal myself. I've found for myself the best compromise is to force yourself to pick at least one feature other than cost. We've got a 17 year old Toyota Yaris that I tell myself is for fuel efficiency, and an old Ford Ranger because I wanted at least one of our vehicles to be able to move sheet goods. Technically I could probably walk onto most any lot and pay cash for whatever I wanted, but I know there's zero chance I'll ever do that.
With cars if you wanted to bias yourself towards newer cars you could prioritize safety features alongside cost.
A Yaris and a Ranger (who doesn’t love a Ranger!) are going to serve you well, but they’re not going to have the active and passive safety features of a more modern car. Put next to cost it makes it a bit harder to perform maladaptive frugality.
>Expensive cars are mostly about status signalling
Uhm, only if you are counting the most basic utility, then you're right.
However if you actually enjoy driving (A->A driving), there is a HGUE difference and it's not just signaling. It's that you probably can't tell the difference, or don't care.
There is no comparison between driving a new Porsche or Bentley vs a new Toyota or even a Lexus.
Bah. I've driven luxury bmws, porches, and corvettes. You want to know what my daily driver is? A miata. Those other cars are faster, yes, but nothing else makes driving quite the occasion that a miata does. You don't have to go expensive to buy something you actually enjoy driving.
Yep, I've always said it's much more fun to drive a 'slow car fast' than a fast car slow. I drove a friends suped up vette and I could barely breathe on the gas pedal without breaking laws. Meanwhile I can rip my miata to redline in 3rd gear and not raise too much suspicion getting on the interstate.
If you compare a Porsche SUV to a Lexus SUV, there's almost no difference.
If you compare a Porsche Boxster to a Toyota, the Porsche is much more of a driver's car and if you're the right kind of driver, there's simply no comparison. (We'll ignore the FT86 / 86 for the moment ;)!)
If you buy a Bentley... you probably pay someone else to drive it for you.
Something to remember in all of this is hedonic adaptation. Buying a Porsche will feel in the moment different from buying a Toyota. But a few months later, you will be driving "your car" and much of the time, you'll be thinking about driving, traffic, signs, speeds, lights, pedestrians, bikers, the song you're playing, your next turn, a dozen other things. For the most part, you won't be thinking about how much "better" your car is in comparison to the alternative. You'll be used to it. You'll have adapted.
Different cars are certainly different for a personality who is drawn to the merits of automobiles. My favorite car was a $20K used Mazda 3 hatchback. I liked it much better than some much more luxurious cars (including the Polestar 2 Performance Plus I have now.) But that wasn't because of luxuries (the Mazda had luxury and heated seats and climate control and swivel headlights and adaptive cruise control and... and...) but because I enjoyed pressing the clutch, pulling the gear lever into second, releasing the clutch, putting my foot down, and steering through a corner. (The Polestar has some merits as well, but they are very different merits.) The Mazda 3 had a whopping ~186 HP... but it was fun. (Don't get me started on my 2007 Honda Fit... oh the memories!)
I've owned or driven cars from almost every auto-manufacturer found in the US/EU. I can clearly say (subjectively) there is a HUGE difference between a Porsche Cayenne GTS, Turbo S or Turbo GT than Any F-Sport Lexus. Sorry, not the same league.
As far as the adaptation, maybe. But driving a Toyota never brought a smile on a twisty, ever. But it was reliable and always started :) The Porsche, every time, it never gets old [feeling] after many years.
I'm curious what the breakdown is. I definitely know people who buy nice cars just for the status aspect. My neighbor bought a Porsche recently and I was talking to them about which fun roads they've driven in around here (I bike and ride motorcycles so I've been on a lot of fun backroads) and they said they've only tried one road once.
I ended up asking them what they do with their Porsche and apparently it's mostly going to car meetups and saying that they have a Porsche and feeling good about owning a Porsche.
So yeah as a former Miata owner I know that expensive cars tend to just be more fun to drive but if you live in an HCOL area with people who are highly leveraged, you'll find a lot of people who buy nice cars only for status signaling. I suspect in HCOL areas more do it for status than the actual love of driving.
(FWIW I find this in a lot of hobbies. I can ride a loaner bike faster than a lot of riders around here decked out in fancy kit, clips, and the best groupsets. A lot of people in HCOL areas engage in hobbies as an excuse to nurse a shopping and status addiction.)
Which goes back to the root comment that a lot of tech people highly leverage their life because it enables them to have a lifestyle and status that they think they need or deserve.
Maybe you live somewhere that's possible, or not too far from such a somewhere. Rare to find such places within 50 miles of a big city though, unless you're in Germany and have the autobahn.
I suspect most premium cars get to spend a tiny fraction of their mileage doing the kind of driving where they'd measurably beat a mid-market model.
They cannot, because they are wrong. And I say this as a person who has owned no small number of fancy cars (but I got better).
A new base-model Prius is absurdly luxurious compared to a base model car of 1975 or 1985 or even 1995. If you have lived long enough to see this change, then dropping 2x or 3x or 10x the cost of the Prius self-evidently puts you wildly beyond the point of diminishing returns.
The Prius is going to have excellent climate control, and a phenomenal stereo. It's going to have adaptive cruise control, and will warn you when you drift out of your lane, or if you're about to run into an obstacle.
Outside of motorsports-sorts of things, what you get out of more expensive vehicles is of limited utility. Mostly, it's just showing off.
Now, if you want a track weapon, then yeah, you DO get more by spending. But for a regular person who wants to get from point A to point B comfortably and safely? The Prius is fantastic, and it's hard to justify spending more unless you're willing to admit that it's a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses kind of thing.
Even in motorsports, presumably it’s still
mostly showing off? Unless you are a pro, you’d still lose any seriously comepetitivr race and have plenty to learn and enjoy driving a not-quite-top of the line sports car?
I don’t know motorsports, but in all the sports I do know it’s that way. Tennis, cycling… there are serious diminishing returns in all of those and most kit spending isn’t justified by performance as much as status or stamp collecting.
So much of our lives are taken up by worrying about tiny performance differences that really don’t matter. It makes me sad for the waste of life sometimes.
>Even in motorsports, presumably it’s still mostly showing off? Unless you are a pro, you’d still lose any seriously comepetitivr race and have plenty to learn and enjoy driving a not-quite-top of the line sports car?
I was at a track day once, and you'd see guys rolling up with very expensive cars, and they were often clocked as noobs before anyone even spoke to them. The guy rolling up with a beat up 1st gen miata pulling a trailer with two sets of spare tires? Yeah, that guy got respect. Dude was scary quick in the turns.
That's definitely true, and I have a whole other rant how my cycling pals and I love to poke fun at dudes who show up to the group ride on a brand new $10,000 bike and get dropped before the midpoint.
BUT! It's easier than you think to get a point in participatory motorsports where the difference between, say, a Cayman and a Miata is something you can actively use.
>That's definitely true, and I have a whole other rant how my cycling pals and I love to poke fun at dudes who show up to the group ride on a brand new $10,000 bike and get dropped before the midpoint.
This has nothing to do with higher end cars or bikes being "signaling" this is just an anecdote between your skill and the next level.
You could say the same thing about a tour de france winner with any bike vs you and your pals.
If you are competitive, you get to a point where the differences do matter.
>This has nothing to do with higher end cars or bikes being "signaling" this is just an anecdote between your skill and the next level.
No, that's precisely what it's about.
>You could say the same thing about a tour de france winner with any bike vs you and your pals
In cycling, a TdF rider's bike isn't significantly more expensive or fancy than the highest-end bike available from any given maker. A novice rider rolling up on something one or two ticks away from the absolute top of the line is being a silly person. Novices in any discipline who opt for the high end of equipment are making foolish choices, and are frequently teased about it.
>If you are competitive, you get to a point where the differences do matter.
My guess is that you don't know very much about cycling. Pogi would be as very nearly as fast on my $5000 road bike as he is on his TdF bike. His comp bike is a little bit lighter, and it has components that are one tick higher up and thus lighter, but the differences at this level are tiny.
Nobody who isn't being paid to ride needs to go higher than $5k on a road bike. Going higher is just showing off, which is of course a totally reasonable thing to do, but don't pretend it makes a real difference.
In the Uk it’s about £3-4k I think. Beyond that the differences in function are very small and would make no differences at all in an amateur road race. For time trials it’s a bit different and there clothing does make a measurable difference, although still v small relative to training harder!
The groupset would drive it for me. If I was buying a new bike, and I knew I wanted to be a rider, I wouldn't mess about with anything less than Shimano 105. At Specialized, the lowest end bike with the 105 groupset on it is $2100. That's the Allez Comp, which has an aluminum frame and wheels.
The next step up the ladder would be their "endurance" frame, which is carbon. It's called the Roubaix, and equipped with 105 it's $2800.
Either of those would be a good first "serious" bike.
If the question is more about diminishing returns, I'd offer my own bike, which is a Giant TCR Advanced. It's a couple years old. I have about $5500 in it, all in, but that includes the middle-grade SRAM electronic shifting group, carbon wheels, and a power meter. The meter is skippable if you're not doing serious training, but I did and do use power data for training. Subtract $800 if you don't want that.
I honestly think spending more is just showing off. If that's your jam, knock yourself out, but it's probably not making a big difference UNLESS you need a custom frame to be comfortable.
I'm not the guy you're asking, and you didn't need to be rude, but the difference is a fun driving experience. It's perfectly OK not to value that, but it's a valid priority.
I'm speaking here as an NA Miata owner. My car's waaay behind your Prius on the luxury scale: it's loud on the freeway, and rattles and bumps the whole time; there's no cruise control; the roof seals leak a bit if you don't close the windows / doors in just the right way; the AC's on the fritz at the moment, and I need to sand off and re-spray some peeling clear coat that makes it look dumb. I've put more time (and actual $$) into the car than its paper value should justify, but goddamn does dropping the roof and pulling out of the driveway put a silly smile onto my face every single time, and heel-and-toeing a downshift on a twisty road to hit the next corner just right never stops being a thrill.
"Upgrading" to a more expensive car would buy me the luxury and the fun together - together with a lot of engine power I don't need outside the track, and would frankly be scared of day-to-day - and (to the point of this thread) I'm kinda frugal, so I don't feel any need to do that. But "luxury" (even "comfort", sometimes) and "fun" are orthogonal values, in the automotive world, and you asked, so that's the answer.
I'm not convinced there's a materially more-fun driving experience to be had by spending gobs more money.
If you optimize for that instead of other aspects, then Prius money would get you a Miata with most of the same features and a sportier aspects. And you're still a long way from a six-figure car. That was the gist of my earliest point.
I think the gist of your point got missed by both me and the GP. It read like you didn't think / understand fun was any kind of a value at all. I mean, you did ask:
> What specific benefits does a "driver's car" have over a "regular" car, praytell?
You're dead right on about the Miata vs Prius comparison, though. If I wasn't, for all of its manifest inconveniences, unreasonably in love with my (at this point classic status) little car I'd "upgrade" to a newer Miata.
That said:
> a materially more-fun driving experience [isn't] to be had by spending gobs more money
Kinda isn't the case? I've driven a couple of $100k+ cars, and they were a fricking blast. Effortless power is intoxicating; you feel momentarily like a super-hero when you put the throttle down. I can only imagine that a proper racecar is another leap beyond that - albeit with a massive decrease in comfort.
The catch, however, is that you can't safely (or legally) drive high-performance cars anywhere near their limit in public, only on the track. So, 99% of the time 90% of the money you've spent is wasted. My Miata is 90% of the fun 100% of the time, at (mostly!) legal speeds, and if I want to actually push its / my limits I can do that on a cone course in an empty parking lot, no track required.
(Also, little kids smile and wave at me all the time, because it's cute, and hard-core gear-heads start conversations with me about it at petrol stations. That's all fun, too.)
I think I'm getting a lot more enjoyment per dollar or per mile than the $100k+ fools do.
Unless, of course, they're doing it for status signaling, which they mostly are. That's fair, I guess; I don't think my Miata ever got me laid, which (I'm told) their cars do. The rest of us just wish they'd be damn honest about it, that's all.
The thing is all 100k cars are well past the point of diminishing returns.
I use to have a 993. It was a lot of fun. I also had a 2016 GTI. It was at least 85% of the fun for 20% the cost. It didn’t turn heads as much, though, which is what most people buying high end cars are after.
These days I get my zoomies on two wheels. I have a Triumph, so I’m very familiar with the gas station chat-ups. ;)
I'm replying to the comment that expensive cars are mostly signaling. And it's false.
For people who don't like cars (/r/f*kcars is strong on HN) I understand their viewpoint. For people who LOVE cars, we see the details and appreciate the engineering, craftsmanship and art.
Will a Prius get you a->b the same as a "signaling car", yes. But for the hobbiest, it's the journey not the destination.
But what is 'luxury'? You may have in mind a Rolls Royce. But maybe he doesn't want that.
If they've been frugal their entire life, they aren't as far along the hedonistic treadmill, a new reliable car is a luxury.
If you're used to darning socks, buying new socks is a luxury.
If I buy a PS2 today, why is that not a splurge, if I didn't have one previously? Yes it doesn't have the best graphics but it's a step up from my PS1. Getting the latest and greatest just because, is keeping up with the Joneses. And that's a path to spending money, not happiness.
The knowledge that you have enough in your bank account if things go to pot, itself brings happiness
My own parents are in their late 90’s. Because they grew up in the wake of the Great Depression, I always assumed their extreme frugality was a function of the economic distress in their formative years. They also properly accounted for the fact that old-age care is very expensive. Parenthetically, most do not seem to anticipate that accelerated burn rate near the EOL. It’s also a phase whose duration is hard to predict.
Are you sure they were deciding only or even primarily based on cost? I often find myself choosing cheaper options over more expensive ones, because I find them easier or more enjoyable to use. I think with expensive/luxury products, there tends to be more "curation" and opinionation, which can work well if your preferences line up but is a detriment if not. I also think a lot of times more expensive products are just "luxury-hacking," having focused on "building a brand" to the point where they are able to charge more for worse products. Example: Beats headphones adding weights inside just so that they "feel more premium" https://www.news.com.au/technology/home-entertainment/audio/...
I think he was considering a Lexus RX. I doubt he even looked at BMW, Mercedes, etc (not really his style).
His Toyota was probably under $40k. This was back when cars were quite a bit less expensive than now. Nice car for sure, but the Lexus probably would have been a bit more refined.
> The idea of spending $1,000 on a phone is just something she is unable to bring herself to do
Your parents are smart. 1000 dollars for a phone is absolute nonsense. A luxury car is something you should be sure you will thoroughly enjoy, because they are a good way to set money on fire. If you do want one, buy it second hand, for it will cost hundreds of dollars per km for the first kilometers.
For years I did this with the thermostat - something I learned from my father who always kept the house under 65F (18C) in Winter. I'm somewhat ashamed to admit it even led to arguments with my spouse early in our marriage when I would enter a room and find the thermostat set to a balmy 70F.
Eventually I just sat down, looked at how much it costs keep the house a few degrees warmer in winter, and realized we could afford to be comfortable. And if I were really hell bent on saving money, there were other lower-priority expenses I could cut back on first. But I don't even think it was even necessarily about the money - it was more that saving energy and toughing it out felt virtuous to me. Which is all fine, but not something that should be imposed on your partner if they don't share the same beliefs (or if they just get cold easier than you).
Funny, I went the other way round in the Bay Area. PG&E bills were so high so it was the choice of putting on a jacket or paying $1k extra over the winter months. And my reasoning was "I can afford a jacket".
I think I would still take that option, at least partially! Our gas bills where I am have gotten awful in recent years after the gas company separated from it's parent and all the homes (apartments) around here have god awful insulation since they're 80-150 years old.
I bought some fleece sweatpants for $40 and the amount I was able to keep my home unheated was totally fine and I made that money back within that month.
Also the cost of apartment-friendly insulation paid for itself immediately as well (which wouldn't apply to most decent apartments).
Where I live these days, it's 50/50 heat included in rent versus not, and I have to remind my friends that literally all of the buildings they rent in are 50+ years old.
And if your landlord is balking at including heat in rent, there's a decent chance it's because your bill will be outrageous because there's zero insulation, and as a tenant there's little you can do to fix that.
I’m always colder in my mother’s house in Scotland (-5°C on cold days) than I am at my MIL’s house in the frozen Canadian wastelands (-40°C/F on cold days), because my mother will play games with thermostat to save money, where my MIL would simply die of exposure if the heating wasn’t on consistently for 6 months of the year.
There's also a very different type of cold close to the water. -40C will dry out your skin and make it feel like it's burning, but -5C in Scotland or on one of the Gulf Islands near Vancouver will make your bones feel frozen without good insulation.
You know those Christmas cards that show a frosty twinkly white treescape? That climate will kill you even at -5C.
People die on Ben Nevis every few years because they think its not that cold. But Scottish cold in that part of the world is brutal, there's so much moisture in the air that freezes if you get wet and cant quickly get dry you will die fast.
If the relative humidity is 100%, then being wet won't make you colder: the water has to evaporate in order to cool you, and it can't do that at 100% relative humidity. The problem that high humidity cold causes is increased convection, and the problem being wet causes is the dramatic near-complete loss of the insulation value of many garments.
There is a _lot_ of folk science about cold weather that is just plain wrong.
I love the winter for this. My thermostat is set to 16C at night. I prefer if the heat never even kicks on, it’s noisy and disruptive to have air blowing through the vents. I wish there was AC that could make my house that cold at night while making no noise!
Going on your Slavic username: as an American who moved to a country without forced-air HVAC, it’s been quite a revelation to discover how backwards forced air really is.
But you still need to move air for cooling (as opposed to using water for heating), because you can’t cause condensation during cooling without creating damage and health risks.
Hydronic (water transport) heat is great: extremely comfortable and quiet compared to forced hot air.
I had a home battery put in recently and switched over to wholesale power...and the most shocking thing has been how little power our reverse cycle air conditioners actually use. Like, we bought them for efficiency, but between solar panels and a battery I can actually just have them on all night and we might just barely run out if we had good sun that day.
Basically a bunch of technology has just crossed over to make being comfortable not just affordable, but visibly so (which would've been great when I was a kid - it made a huge difference when I hooked the power monitoring up for my dad and proved to him that he should just set the AC to a target temperature and the fastest fan speed he could stand the sound of and it would use less power...and he actually did it!)
I think if you want to keep it on the cold side, you can still do that. Builds character, isn't dangerous, and saves a couple of bucks. You can also keep it warm when you feel like being warm. There's something in human psychology about being able to endure discomfort and then come back to "safety".
And some of us literally have no choice. I need my home office to be under 18℃ in order to not imitate a drowned rat. Anything over 28℃ and I am dripping with sweat even completely naked. And no, I am not obese.
I'm glad that this exists. I hope Wideluxx is able to make a profit and remain in operation.
But for me, while I think film is cool, that's one rabbit hole that I have no interest in going down personally. And if I did, I would probably buy used vintage gear rather than spending $4,400 on a new (and extremely niche) film camera.
Digitial photography and retro film simulations/filters are good enough for me if I want to add some "character" to my photos. And ideally most of the character would come from the subject rather than the medium. But I get that lots of people derive inspiration from the process and the medium - and that's why I'm glad things like this exist.
There's a pretty significant misunderstanding here of why people shoot with film or use any high-end camera; it's got very little to do with the end result. After all, very few people evaluate an image based on what camera it was captured on.
No, it's much closer to the reason car people still have manual transmissions. Shooting a rangefinder or TLR are completely different experiences than an SLR. Shooting a Hasselblad feels like sexy magic. It's as far removed from shooting with a phone and applying a filter as driving driving a Civic is from driving a fancy European sportscar around a track while wearing leather gloves.
I thought I covered that when I said "I get that lots of people derive inspiration from the process and the medium". I.e. people enjoy the act of shooting film.
But there's also a lot of people who covet the "film look" and the "character" of vintage lenses, even if that's not something you personally care about.
I personally love the look of movies that are shot on film, though I have no desire to ever try it myself (way too expensive).
You don't have to be a "gear hoarder" to enjoy the manual process. It has a different pace from digital photography, especially if you're using a vintage camera with no automation. Then you can process the film yourself, too, if you want even more of a sense of craft about your image-making.
> The high expense of 10gig is, in part, because it isn't widely necessary and the people buying it are willing to pay extra.
I think the price has more to do with where you live and how the market is structured than how necessary it is. In Japan where there is competition between ISPs, I pay about $40/mo for 10Gbps.
Routers have also come down in price to where they are pretty affordable for consumers. I use a Ubiquiti Cloud Gateway Fiber [1] which has three 10Gbs ports (two SPF+, one 10GbE) for $279. A TP-Link router [2] with an upstream 10GbE port and 2.5GbE LAN ports and Wi-Fi 7 is about $140. 2.5 GbE NICs have become cheap and ubiquitous and could commonly be found on $150 mini pcs (before memory and SSD prices went crazy).
Yeah it's more than more than most people need, but I definitely appreciate having the increased speed when downloading 50GB games, uploading 200GB files to YouTube, or backing up files to the cloud. I've probably never maxed out the full 10Gbps, but exceeding 1Gbps is pretty easy in relatively common use cases.
And if you don't need a router, you can get 10gbit ports for much cheaper than that. The Mikrotik CRS305-1G-4S gives you one copper 1gbit port, four 10gbit-capable SFP+ cages, and is ~150USD [0]. Their whole lineup of switches with SFP+ ports can seen here [1].
> To Zeilberger, believing in infinity is like believing in God. It’s an alluring idea that flatters our intuitions and helps us make sense of all sorts of phenomena. But the problem is that we cannot truly observe infinity, and so we cannot truly say what it is.
I'm hoping this is just bad writing from Quanta rather than something "ultrafinitists" truly believe.
I really don't think it's that complicated. Even pre-schoolers, competing to see who can say the highest number, quickly learn the concept of infinity. Or elementary school students trying to write 1/3 as a decimal.
Of course you need to be careful mapping infinity onto the physical world. But as a mathematical concept, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
> Mathematicians can construct a form of calculus without infinity, for instance, cutting infinitesimal limits out of the picture entirely.
This seems like a useful concept that also doesn't require denying the very obvious concept of infinity.
They pretty quickly realize that there is no winning because you can always just say more numbers than the last kid - there is no biggest number. Usually something like "a hundred million million million million million and two", "a hundred million million million million million and three", etc.
And then someone, whose friend or older brother taught them the concept, blurts out "infinity". And after a quick explanation, everyone more or less gets it.
When I was about ten, a math teacher once asked me whether the number 0.9999... (infinitely repeating) was different than 1. I said, with my child's intuition, that of course it was. He then challenged me to write down a number that was in between them, because if they were not the same number then there would be many (in fact, infinitely many) numbers between them. I couldn't, of course: the best I could do was to write 0.9999...5, which falls into the same category error as "infinity plus one / infinity plus two".
Now, decades later, I get it better. The number 0.99999... is 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + 9/10000 + ..., which approaches 1 asymptotically the same way that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + ... approaches 1. Under many circumstances, you can treat that number as if it was 1, which neatly answers Zeno's Paradox. (Though beware of the limitations of that analysis: 1/n approaches infinity as n approaches 0, but 1/0 is not equal to infinity. Because 1/n approaches infinity only as n approaches 0 from the positive direction. If you look at the sequence 1/-0.1, 1/-0.01, 1/-0.001, etc. where n approaches 0 from the negative direction, that approaches negative infinity. A function that has two different limits as you approach the same number from two different directions cannot have its limit substituted like that).
This is one of my life goals is to prepare my kids to troll their math teachers with the dual numbers and the claim that .999... is obviously 1-ε. Goal is to convince the teacher .999...≠1. Bonus points if they instead convince the teacher to doubt that complex numbers exist.
It really comes down to what semantics we attach to "=" when one of the sides is an infinite series.
The "equals to" sign that we have used prior to that mental exercise was for finite terms only, we had not had to deal with infinitely many terms before that leap in thought. So now we have to extend the notion in a way that is backward compatible.
A convenient one is it is equal to its limit if it exists.
> semantics we attach to "=" when one of the sides is an infinite series
I would say that the semantics are about what an infinite series itself is, not about the equal sign. Once we have the common analytic notion of convergence of an infinite series, then the equality makes sense. The issue is that an infinite series is not an actual sum, but, formally, it is a sequence (of the partial sums). As you say, we represent the limit of the sequence of the partial sums with the same notation and only in the case that we have absolute convergence, but that's basically because we use the same notation for two different things (the sequence of the partial sums, and the limit of that). If we know we refer to the limit, I don't think there is any semantic complication with the equal sign.
Only if they live forever, which they won't. They can only count so fast, and there are only so many of them. Even if every atom in the observable universe was counting at, idk, 1GHz, that's still a finite number. The universe is not (as far as we know for certain) infinitely old. Time may extend infinitely into the future, or it may not. We don't know. So far as we know for sure everything is in fact finite.
Seems that the comments for every article posted to HN these days has complaints about AI.
For people who feel compelled to make such complaints - can you at least include a specific example or two from the article that you feel are "slop"? And preferably something more substantive than calling out the use of em dash.
AI slop is definitely a thing, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that every article written with the help of AI is slop. And this article didn't feel like AI slop to me, so I'm curious to know why you think it is.
Anti-AI slop is also very much a thing. Let's try to avoid posting that as well.
People love to feel like they're the clever ones in the know who see the "real" world that others miss. It's the same underlying motivator behind conspiracy theorists. It's nice that you see what's really happening, which clearly makes you better than all the others who stumble around blindly. They're not special like you are.
I read "AI slop from the looks of it" in the same tone of voice as "that's what they want you to believe".
The scary thing is I have seen high level directors and executives say “I asked ChatGPT and it agreed with me” as a way to try to settle a debate. People seem all too willing to delegate even matters of judgement to AI.
On the other hand I have been in debates where someone asks ChatGPT to draft a list of possible approaches and pros and cons - and after reading through the list we were all in alignment on the best approach.
The latter I think is a constructive use of AI to elevate thinking, while the former has me thinking it may be time for a career change.
What? I've heard many takes on what AI lacks, but never this one. We had ChatGPT being able to solve an Erdős problem on its own yesterday [0]; how could you explain that if it cannot do logic?
LLM didn't solve an Erdos problem, it generated a text that a human looked at, cleaned up, corrected and used as base for a solution.
WRT logic, there a multiple occasions of LLMs answering incorrectly to trivial logic puzzles. Of course, with each occasion becoming public they are added to training data and overfitted on, but if you embed them in a more subtle way LLMs will fail again.
> “This one is a bit different because people did look at it, and the humans that looked at it just collectively made a slight wrong turn at move one,” says Terence Tao, a mathematician at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has become a prominent scorekeeper for AI’s push into his field. “What’s beginning to emerge is that the problem was maybe easier than expected, and it was like there was some kind of mental block.”
> “There was kind of a standard sequence of moves that everyone who worked on the problem previously started by doing,” Tao says. The LLM took an entirely different route, using a formula that was well known in related parts of math, but which no one had thought to apply to this type of question.
> “The raw output of ChatGPT’s proof was actually quite poor. So it required an expert to kind of sift through and actually understand what it was trying to say,” Lichtman says. But now he and Tao have shortened the proof so that it better distills the LLM’s key insight.
> More importantly, they already see other potential applications of the AI’s cognitive leap. “We have discovered a new way to think about large numbers and their anatomy,” Tao says. “It’s a nice achievement. I think the jury is still out on the long-term significance.”
You can debate whether the LLM used logic or not. I don't think you can debate that the LLM has in this case elevated human thinking, by leading us to a solution that had eluded world-class mathematicians for 60 years. And a new way to think "about large numbers and their anatomy".
And if it works for Terrence Tao and Erdos problems, then I'm certainly not above using AI to help brainstorm solutions for my little app at work.
Sure, LLMs are good at generating text that humans can interpret as educated guesses. But a list of educated guesses is not 'enumerating options', because informed decision requires a complete list of options in order to not miss anything. Imagine using a Monte-Carlo method with sample size of 3 for finding a function extremum - that's the equivalent of using LLM-generated list of options for making a decision.
>LLM didn't solve an Erdos problem, it generated a text that a human looked at, cleaned up, corrected and used as base for a solution.
That's not at all what happened. You clearly are unable to actually understand the work it did so it would have been nice if you'd read the article and accounts of experts.
You don’t need to be retired or a millionaire to be happy. Nor is being retired or a millionaire any guarantee of happiness.
Saving for retirement is just about making sure your needs are met when your health starts to decline and you may no longer be able to work. If you’ve got a little extra saved to travel around the world or whatever, even better. It’s important, but don’t wait until retirement to be happy. There’s no guarantee you’ll even live that long, for starters.
reply