Jump to content

monkk

Members
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It's testing and training data. Think how Amazon uses UPS/USPS/Fedex to deliver, until they figure out that they have enough customers in an area so they start delivering themselves. Right now it doesn't make sense for there to be a purely internet grocer warehouse, but within enough users that calculus changes.
  2. With the new state feature, every game that implements it essentially gets its own Diablo 3 Challenge Rift system. That's compelling.
  3. Yep, the fact that the game is unintuitive to new players, and the base set is simple to experienced players so that neither side is happy is a major factor. This is a problem that would naturally get better as more sets released and new players stop being new players, but we may never get that opportunity. FWIW I love everything about how Artifact gameplay was designed. It is truly a marvel at how well they were able to combine so many different systems. The fact that all RNG occured before a round started(with the exception of one case at launch that is now removed) so that you always have an opportunity to react to it is brilliant. I think another major factor that no one has talked about is the fact that the Steam marketplace is garbage and feels terrible to use. Perhaps it would have been worth it for Valve to ensure the buy/sell spreads were only $0.01.
  4. The obvious answer is to raise prices until demand drops, but that runs into the same issues that concerts run into. Suddenly not a single local can afford to eat at your restaurant. The restaurant has "sold out" so they need to keep prices down at original levels and sell tickets to the locals... but then they get resold on scalpers sites. If only the restaurant could sell shares of their business with every meal sold, then they could raise prices when their restaurant got national attention because the locals would be getting their share which they bought into at a cheap price and is now massively more.
  5. Playing Mega Millions or Powerball is the equivalent of doubling up 26 times in a row in blackjack and deciding to let it all ride for #27. If you wouldn't do that you shouldn't play the lottery at those odds.
  6. Even FBA can be fake if the owner of the product didn't select the more costlier option to limit the sales of a SKU to only themselves because otherwise Amazon will commingle all the items from all sources. It's a big issue when there is no way as the customer to know if what you are going to get is real or not.
  7. No, landlords are always going to seek to rent out their apartments at the maximum possible value they think they can get. An increase of property tax does not change that formula whatsoever. Higher property taxes will lower the value of the property, so you should actually see the opposite effect take place.
  8. Rents are composed of: - Whatever money the market will bear. This money can then go to things like... debt-service + maintenance + insurance + taxes + profit. If you decide that you aren't going to profit from renting because of a high LVT, you need to sell the land to not incur that LVT, and another landlord will step up in your place and rent the land out. If it is unprofitable for every landlord, then the land isn't worth that much and the price and corresponding LVT will lower, and at some point it will be worth it for some landlord. Land doesn't go away, it always exerts its supply forces on the system. Generally encourage more density, especially in plots of land that are unused. I'd expect taxes to lower in dense cities, stay the same low amount in rural areas, and taxes to rise in suburbs. A 2 million dollar 2 story home in SF would be punished severely by a LVT. A 60 story high rise would have its taxes drop considerably.
  9. This is the first time in Hearthstone history that has a class has three different win conditions, and it's really hard to tell between the three. Druid could be Malygos, they could be Togwaggle, or they could be Mechathun and they all play the same 25 cards. Interesting meta we have here.
  10. And it only gets worse after 10 years. How are you this dense? I'm done here. Thanks for forcing me to work through this problem. Now I know exactly why WLI is terrible. Before this debate I only knew it was terrible but didn't know exactly why.
  11. The problem with Whole Life is that it is a long term low risk option. That doesn't make sense. If you need money in the short term, you should avoid risk as much as possible. If you need money in the long term, you want to find investments that have the best combination of most value and most risk. If you had the option to go back to 2007 - right before the housing market collapse - and you could buy Whole Life, a 10 year bond, or buy S&P, the results would have been 1. Initial S&P 1500, drops down to 840 DISASTER, but now it's 2840. So you're about a 90% return in 10 years and you had the worst timing imaginable. Subtract some for term insurance if you need it, still ahead. 2. The 10 year bond in 2007 had a return rate of 1.04737, your investment would gain 58% in the 10 year period. Again, subtract some for term. 3. By 10 years all sources say that life insurance would yet to break even with term plus bonds. But let's say in the recession you lost your job. The bonds investor would be happy, he could take his money out no problem to pay his expenses. The stock investor would get punished. Not only did his investment get destroyed, he then has to live on the remainder. But the life insurance is the worst of all. He loses everything he has invested in when he is unable to pay his fees. And you call that low risk? Bonds are a great tool if you need money in the short term, the stock market is a great tool if you need money in the long term, and whole life insurance is a decent tool if you are a millionaire with illiquid assets and want to avoid taxes. For any other scenario it doesn't make sense.
  12. The current theorycraft is that if you want to have a full playset of every card, which makes no sense because you can always trade cards anyway, it will cost $100 at launch. Once you have that full set, if you didn't enjoy the game you could just go sell everything on the market, and end up only down ~$20. If you're above average you should be winning tournaments(ala Hearthstone's Arena, not like as in on Twitch live to millions) and it could end up "profitable".
  13. If a free game requires hundreds of dollars a year, it isn't free. As a Hearthstone player I'm super excited by the economics and I trust that Valve can make a good game. Also sorta hoping Hearthstone becomes cheaper as a result, Blizzard needs competition in this space.
  14. I'm showing you the big picture. 80% of fees in the first year and 6% for each additional year is destroying earnings potential. Where do you think the insurance company gets the money to give to their agents? Oh, from their clients. Never time the market. I could quote a hundred people who said 2014 was a bubble, and 2016, and 2017... If you didn't invest you would have missed the gains. Productivity increasing isn't likely to stop any time soon. The return of the stock market over the last 100 years is 10%. 7% Real. Why is this so sticky to you? Do you make money selling insurance? Have you invested a large amount into WLI and don't want to hear that you wasted it? Do you have a very conservative approach to life and can't bear risk?
×
×
  • Create New...