The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A light bulb in Livermore, CA has been working for 107 years.
Originally posted by Spiffor
Actually, Snoopy is right on a general basis.
Unlike the early time of the light-bulb market (and the same is true on pretty much every mature market), industrialists have to rely on consumers replacing their wares. As a result, industrialists rationally avoid focusing on long-term reliability, and can even purposefully restrict the life expectancy of their products.
This fails when you realize there are multiple industrialists, and that consumers generally prefer to buy longer-lasting products, all else being equal. See compact flourescent vs. incandescent bulbs. The general accusation that all industrialists try to make things more replaceable nowadays strikes me as far-fetched, as it requires a massive conspiracy that could easily be overthrown by a small manufacturer. It's not impossible but you need to provide pretty strong evidence to support the accusation.
The general perception that things don't last as long today probably has two main sources:
1) Sampling bias. This is pretty self-explanatory.
2) It's entirely plausible that it is simply more economical to produce a cheap product that gets replaced more frequently than an expensive, high-quality product that lasts a long time.
Originally posted by snoopy369
If you disagree with me, make your point.
You have a big habit of mindlessly repeating bits of common wisdom that can be debunked with only a little thought. It's aggravating and tiring given that you are definitely intelligent enough to debunk them yourself. The only people I'm interested in having an extended discussion with either
1) have already debunked that theory and can move on to interesting points.
2) have actually provided a somewhat robust justification for said common wisdom, rather than just written it down. These people (like Spiffor) I'll debate the point with.
Statements like that are obnoxious and rude... and show your immaturity (my second comment). You want people to treat you with respect, earn it.
The people I want to get respect from already give it to me.
Maybe you don't know this, but if you built a 4 watt bulb today it'd last probably even longer.
What a monster non-story. You should be posting about the 75 San Diego college students busted for selling cocaine in their frathouse, now that's a story. It also explains you.
It's 96 people but only 70 students or something. It was almost entirely weed but small quantities of X and coke were found.
The really stupid thing is they had two dozen cops working for a full year on this case which was mostly just stoners smoking weed in their living rooms while violent crime was going up. I don't know about you but I think cops should solve every violent crime before they waste time on college kids growing pot in their apartments.
I think the cops they put on busting kids for weed are not of the calibre to handle violent crime investigations.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
The funny part is that they found a total of three handguns in the homes of these 96 people (two in one house) and the police chief went on about violent crime and he showed off those three handguns as proof. The problem is all three handguns were legally purchased, legally registered, and safely stored according to state law.
I dare say if you raid 96 houses in America you will turn up at least 3 fire arms even in places like California. To bad for him fire arms are legal.
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This fails when you realize there are multiple industrialists, and that consumers generally prefer to buy longer-lasting products, all else being equal. See compact flourescent vs. incandescent bulbs.
One of the major market failures is asymetrical information. A consumer is unlikely to know the longlastingness of a product all by himself.
There are three kinds of markets where shortlastedness won't be punished by the consumers IMO:
- Products that can be easily replaced with little hassle, like lightbulbs (the fluorescent's alleged longevity is definitely a publicity stunt for the new technology)
- Products that get replaced quickly because of fashion. I'm thinking about clothes, cars, consoles etc.
- Products that are so generic that you will never identify a brand that is supposedly superior to others (again, lightbulbs comes to mind, as well as the whole market of noname computer components)
The only problem is that, while most consumers don't really care about the shortlastedness, some actually do. For example, you'll see plenty of old Mercedes cars in Turkey or Africa, because those are the cheapest motor vehicles that are still working. For example, some people like myself enjoy not having to buy new clothes for years, as long as the old ones haven't become rags.
There are also cultural differences. As an example, my father worked as a construction engineer both with the Swiss and with the French. The French constructors aim to provide a building that won't make any problem until the guarantee expires - they won't spend any energy so that problems are avoided afterwards, as it's the buyer's problem. OTOH, the Swiss aim to make a building that will be as reliable and wasteless as possible for its whole life expectancy (a century).
The general accusation that all industrialists try to make things more replaceable nowadays strikes me as far-fetched, as it requires a massive conspiracy that could easily be overthrown by a small manufacturer.
Because of the above, I don't think it requires a massive conspiracy. Reliability is rarely a big issue for consumers, unless a brand is notoriously unreliable. There are plenty of markets where it makes sense to cut corners on reliability - not only in order to have some slack, but also because it's good for replacement.
It's entirely plausible that it is simply more economical to produce a cheap product that gets replaced more frequently than an expensive, high-quality product that lasts a long time.
It's fully possible. However, I'd argue it's much less ecological
"I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis
Originally posted by snoopy369
If you disagree with me, make your point.
You have a big habit of mindlessly repeating bits of common wisdom that can be debunked with only a little thought. It's aggravating and tiring given that you are definitely intelligent enough to debunk them yourself. The only people I'm interested in having an extended discussion with either
1) have already debunked that theory and can move on to interesting points.
2) have actually provided a somewhat robust justification for said common wisdom, rather than just written it down. These people (like Spiffor) I'll debate the point with.
Statements like that are obnoxious and rude... and show your immaturity (my second comment). You want people to treat you with respect, earn it.
The people I want to get respect from already give it to me.
And the Ozzy connection still isn't clear.
The fact that you don't see how arrogant and obnoxious this sounds further underscores your immaturity. I stated what I consider a fact; I charge you to show me how lightbulb companies would make a profit, charging a reasonable amount per bulb, if bulbs lasted 1,000,000 hours. I'm happy to debate the facts with you, if you disagree with it; I see no reason to supply background facts for my initial statement, as however, as it's not only a blatant exaggeration made for the purposes of humor, not argument, but also patently true.
Even regardless of all of that, if you believe what you do, just don't say anything and ignore me. I do that hundreds of times a day, as do most posters here...
I'm also amused that I 'have a habit' of this. I'd love to see other posts in which I did what you say I did... unless 'common wisdom' means 'fact'
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
One of the major market failures is asymetrical information. A consumer is unlikely to know the longlastingness of a product all by himself.
Lightbulbs tend to have the # of hours they'll last on the box, so this is a non-starter.
- Products that can be easily replaced with little hassle, like lightbulbs (the fluorescent's alleged longevity is definitely a publicity stunt for the new technology)
The flourescent's longevity was advertised to specifically counter the fact that it's an otherwise inferior product (it costs more and produces arguably inferior light).
- Products that get replaced quickly because of fashion. I'm thinking about clothes, cars, consoles etc.
This goes back to my point about economics. If something becomes obsolete quickly, it's often just a bad idea to spend resources making it longlasting.
It's fully possible. However, I'd argue it's much less ecological
Originally posted by snoopy369
The fact that you don't see how arrogant and obnoxious this sounds further underscores your immaturity.
I know exactly how arrogant and obnoxious it sounds.
I stated what I consider a fact; I charge you to show me how lightbulb companies would make a profit, charging a reasonable amount per bulb, if bulbs lasted 1,000,000 hours.
Easy. A new manufacturer comes in, makes all of these hypothetical million-hour bulbs (which cost roughly the same to construct as regular bulbs), advertises them as never having to be replaced (and thus saving the consumer tons of money in the long run), and makes a killing by taking over the market for a while.
It makes perfect sense for an investor, and can't be prevented by any of the established manufacturers. It's not like there are enormous barriers to entry, either.
And you really should have been able to see this yourself; I'm disappointed that yet again I had to do your thinking for you.
Even regardless of all of that, if you believe what you do, just don't say anything and ignore me. I do that hundreds of times a day, as do most posters here...
I do that with a lot of posters, because it is truly hopeless to argue with them.
I'm also amused that I 'have a habit' of this. I'd love to see other posts in which I did what you say I did... unless 'common wisdom' means 'fact'
One of the major market failures is asymetrical information. A consumer is unlikely to know the longlastingness of a product all by himself.
There are three kinds of markets where shortlastedness won't be punished by the consumers IMO:
- Products that can be easily replaced with little hassle, like lightbulbs (the fluorescent's alleged longevity is definitely a publicity stunt for the new technology)
- Products that get replaced quickly because of fashion. I'm thinking about clothes, cars, consoles etc.
- Products that are so generic that you will never identify a brand that is supposedly superior to others (again, lightbulbs comes to mind, as well as the whole market of noname computer components)
Absolutely; and further, not only asymetrical information, but irrational choices (from one point of view), is the problem here. When faced with this choice:
1. Lightbulb costs $0.50, lasts 1,000 hours (a year or two at normal use, 2-4 hours/day)
2. Lightbulb costs $20.00, lasts 1,000,000 hours (a thousand years or so)
Many consumers would pick 1. - and I'd argue, ALL consumers would pick 1, in fact. Why? Because in order to make lightbulb 2. practical, you would have to live in that building forty years. That is very uncommon in the modern day. It's technically irrational, from one point of view, but at the same time it is probably rational from the consumer's individual point of view.
Even if it is not rational - say, 0.50 versus 5.00, average expected time of use, 20 years - it can be very hard to choose a much higher price point. Build a house that takes 50 lightbulbs, $250 can be hard to stomach, all at once, when you can pay $25, even if it's cheaper in the long run. (And yes, it's small peanuts compared to $200k it takes to build the house - but then again, if you've ever built a house that was on the edge of your (current) means, you know you're counting the dollars carefully...)
The only problem is that, while most consumers don't really care about the shortlastedness, some actually do. For example, you'll see plenty of old Mercedes cars in Turkey or Africa, because those are the cheapest motor vehicles that are still working. For example, some people like myself enjoy not having to buy new clothes for years, as long as the old ones haven't become rags.
Certainly - and it varies significantly by the product. A lot of the difference is the type of product, and the price point. Sinks, washers, countertops, they tend to last nearly forever; but the makers choose to do this, because not only is this an area with much better information (you make a more researched choice when choosing a large purchase), and where sticker shock is less relevant (you generally consider longevity much more in effectively capital investments then in small grocery-store type purchases), but it is also an area with consistent growth at the high price point.
A low price point, such as lightbulbs, cannot stand long product lifetimes nearly as well, because the low sales level cannot support the company nearly as well. If your lightbulb lasts as long as your sink, for example, in a house there are (again) 50 lightbulbs, and five sinks (excluding your house, Kuci ); so even at the $20 price point, $1,000 per house for lightbulbs, while sinks are at least $2,000, and the sink makers make other elements of the house as well (shower, bathtub, toilet, countertop, etc.) while lightbulbs don't have a logical secondary element (certainly you could have a company, ie GE, who sells many unrelated things, but they do not gain from economy of scale in the same manner as sink+counter+shower+toilet+tub maker would, which are all closely interrelated items). I don't think the $20 price point would last, but even at that price point, profits wouldn't be enough to pay the bills.
There are also cultural differences. As an example, my father worked as a construction engineer both with the Swiss and with the French. The French constructors aim to provide a building that won't make any problem until the guarantee expires - they won't spend any energy so that problems are avoided afterwards, as it's the buyer's problem. OTOH, the Swiss aim to make a building that will be as reliable and wasteless as possible for its whole life expectancy (a century).
No comment here, as I don't know much about construction, and it's not specifically relevant (houses aren't really throwaway goods); but I certainly imagine cultural differences matter.
Because of the above, I don't think it requires a massive conspiracy. Reliability is rarely a big issue for consumers, unless a brand is notoriously unreliable. There are plenty of markets where it makes sense to cut corners on reliability - not only in order to have some slack, but also because it's good for replacement.
And, moreover, it is ultimately an economic decision - $ paid now versus $ paid later, potential use value, etc. If you will live in a house 5 years, then buy it to last 6; who cares beyond that. If you will buy a car every 3 years, then choose the car with better features and shorter life, if the resale value ends up the same after 3 years (because of the features); why would you buy a non-transferrable 10 year warranty car? You'd be flushing money down the drain.
It is certainly more economical for both short-run consumers and producers. That was the point in the first place; it is not economical to produce a long-lived bulb. If you're going to agree with me, then don't mock me [/QUOTE]
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Originally posted by snoopy369
The fact that you don't see how arrogant and obnoxious this sounds further underscores your immaturity.
I know exactly how arrogant and obnoxious it sounds.
I stated what I consider a fact; I charge you to show me how lightbulb companies would make a profit, charging a reasonable amount per bulb, if bulbs lasted 1,000,000 hours.
Easy. A new manufacturer comes in, makes all of these hypothetical million-hour bulbs (which cost roughly the same to construct as regular bulbs), advertises them as never having to be replaced (and thus saving the consumer tons of money in the long run), and makes a killing by taking over the market for a while.
It makes perfect sense for an investor, and can't be prevented by any of the established manufacturers. It's not like there are enormous barriers to entry, either.
And you really should have been able to see this yourself; I'm disappointed that yet again I had to do your thinking for you.
And then the manufacturer goes bankrupt in three years, as far too few people want to buy their bulbs to support their existence. I don't argue it's not possible for someone to do this, but they wouldn't stay in business long. The fixed costs of existing as a company are too high to support selling the very small number of bulbs they'd sell per year if they didn't have to be replaced.
The fact that it is not done should be enough for you; it is certainly possible to make longer lasting tungsten bulbs (lower O2 in the gaseous mixture inside the bulb, thicker tungsten filaments) at a near-zero cost increase. Yet the only longer-lasting bulbs out there are CFLs, at a much higher price point... you make the call.
And please cut out the 'thinking for you' bs; it is condescending and rude. If you can't stomach the fact that another intelligent person has a different opinion than you, you'll not last long in the real world.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
And then the manufacturer goes bankrupt in three years, as far too few people want to buy their bulbs to support their existence.
Or the manufacturer plans for this and has already converted the factories...
Face it, if the technology existed to actually produce such bulbs economically, someone would have done this already. It's the proverbial $20 in the street. And if it is and they haven't, why don't you demonstrate how to some VC - you might get to do it yourself!
For that matter, this is exactly something private equity would do.
Tweet
Comment