TheGRS

Agreed that this happens to a lot of specialty products, but for some reason Ice Cream (or in this case gelato) always seems to go through this cycle. Its like a 10 year cycle from introduction to popularity to selling out and going with cheaper ingredients and before you know it the brand is tarnished and some other brand has taken the mantle.

It definitely also applies to infrastructure like building out clean energy or highways. My connection there was to say, yes build a data center so that we also need to build more energy production. I feel like a lot of people view the current problem from the lens that energy is a finite resource, when its also something that can be expanded.

I consider myself pretty YIMBY, but the data center build outs are definitely starting to catch my eye.

On one hand I want to stay YIMBY here, my typical problem with arguments against this stuff is that it looks at the resources as finite. We can/should build more power capacity. Water usage concerns already have solutions. The market should be allowed to do its thing.

On the other hand I think there are looming problems with data centers. Energy is the obvious one because its detrimentally affecting residents who had no part or say in someone gobbling up a public resource. And its cheaper to build the centers that don't recycle their water usage, so some legislation is needed there. A moratorium toward those ends makes a lot of sense to me.

I have one other unfinished thought that maybe a wait-and-see mentality is a good thing right now. We might be approaching peak LLM usage, maybe. If we are nearing a bubble burst, I can see how a state's leadership might want to protect its residents however it can, but I don't totally know if a moratorium on this achieves that or just delays the inevitable.

This seemed like a great guide to starting any sort of meetup, not just Ruby, FWIW. Good read. I think a lot of meetups fizzled in non-hub cities. I lived in Portland, OR up until recently and we had a vibrant meet-up scene before covid where there was lots of walking to different tech offices and you could typically find a meetup every day of the work week, now its pretty dead on most fronts and there is definitely opportunity for folks to step in and restart it!

I agree, the "buy" on a streamable product implies that as long as the company is solvent and they have the same overall streamable products available, then your "purchase" should always be upheld.

In a an ideal world, if you bought the title then you'd have the ability to download it locally. I understand the licensing is a main driver of taking titles down, but these agreements are completely opaque to the customer at the time of purchase.

The win/win scenario I think is recognizing there is a market for the preserved titles and putting the effort in to capture that market. There's effort involved in emulating old games to work on modern hardware.

But yes I think you're on to something that Nintendo plays the long game the best, they handle their IPs like Disney does: featuring them across multiple verticals that feed into each other. Its surprising to me how long its taken Nintendo to come back to movies and TV.

Actually now that I think about it, Disney's biggest shortcoming is their video game division despite many wonderful retro Disney and Lucasarts games at their disposal.

We should all appreciate that most homes were not done by teams of professionals back in the day. Multiple things can be true here, 1) building your own home will take a lot of time to get right (so time being used in place of money), 2) the skills involved are all completely learnable and do-able for an able-bodied person who again is willing to put the time in, and 3) its not worth it for the vast majority of people who don't want to learn these skills and would rather focus on their own work and pay someone else to be a professional in the space. And yes 4) I've seen quite a bit of DIY work in homes and sometimes its impressive but usually its questionable and sometimes even horrific.

My general impression with most discourse about the economy and statements like "Inflation to my mind supposes that we have to have perpetual growth" is that it looks at transactions within the economy as zero-sum. And that is a false assumption. It grows and shrinks for myriad of reasons that aren't directly related to monetary policy. The monetary policy is there to attempt to keep things stable and predicable, that is all.

> If we grow 3 times the amount of corn that we need this year, do we need to plan to grow 3.1 times next year? Or decrease the cost by 2%? If all the inputs stay the same, where do you get the gains from(assuming that the process is as efficient and automated as possible)?

I think I get what you're driving at, but let me ask this question. Do you believe the price of corn in 1976 reflects the same market forces as the price of corn in 2026? Not the inflationary number alone, but why that corn costs what it does today versus 50 years ago?

There are microeconomic changes for sure, different farming techniques and maybe a different way of buying and selling surplus corn. But the life of a farm hand has likely changed, the average background of them has likely changed, the ownership model of the farm may have changed. The downstream buyers of corn have likely changed from mostly canned good manufacturers to fresh produce providers. And the macroeconomic forces surrounding everything has absolutely changed.

Capital has multiple forms, I agree that physical goods generally depreciate over time. But there is also land, equity, and bonds and they all have their own market forces to deal with.

I'm hand-waving a lot of arguments and considerations with this statement, but from my perspective one advantage to 2-3% inflation is to incentivize owning capital that will outpace inflation. Land, equity, and bonds all have that potential.

Deflation may incentivize renegotiation of labor, but it also incentivizes hoarding of cash, which itself is not otherwise valuable. The value comes from it being passed around through the economy buying more assets. The more purchases -> the more money to be passed around -> the more opportunity to grow the economy. In a deflationary environment (at least in theory) this slows all of that down and decreases economic opportunity, which we generally don't want.

Whoa...harsh words. I consider their fried chicken sando the best in the biz, yes even over Chik-fil-a

You get the same vigor against all of those project all the time. Windmills, solar, nuclear, rail, etc. There's a stronger will to oppose than to build.

I feel like that wasn't nearly as interesting as the title promised. The stuff that I find fascinating about modern Europe against the Roman Empire is how it carved out the modern dividing lines in some areas, or seeded cultural roots that would become their own thing over time (the British being a pretty interesting one). But its all so long ago that all of the other influences that happened over time are probably bigger hallmarks than their Roman roots (like the British again, being invaded by the normans and vikings).

Probably also momentum in their previous meter systems to keep it mostly the same.

I think it makes a pretty good assumption on understanding core chess rules, but yea that would be nice. The thing that did trip me up at first was not realizing the red and blue bishops were the same piece, I was wondering if I was missing something.