Do you have any visibility into why or how only is viewed negatively by some populations? I am still struggling to connect that dot, and I am a native english speaker. But I suspect that may be part of the problem? Are their some languages where the translation of only isn't parsed quite the same or something?
While this may be the prevailing POV in the present, it certainly wasn't always this way. Expressive individualism is an anomaly in the grand scheme of human history.
Many things that we treasure are anomalies in the grand scheme of human history. Treating other races as human beings, valuing life and human potential, believing that everyone including women should be educated... How's that appeal to historical authority apply in those cases? Perhaps you're also a monarchist? In which case, my bad, at least you're consistent :)
It's literally a card game. You can argue the utility and use case are stupid, or wildly less than the cost would suggest, but it's silly to say there is no utility, even if most collectors don't play the game.
Also, I don't know a single person that actually enjoys playing the game. There are no popular online pokemon card games (like MTG or Board Game Arena).
Pokemon company did a terrible job designing and evolving the game itself..
Pokemon TCG Pocket which uses a modified ruleset and its own card sets designed for fast games on mobile devices earned over a billion dollars in its first year before slowing down.
Then there is the official online simulator which is not monetized at all and not used for competitive events so there is no reason for them to market it as a product like its mobile game sister.
What TPC is doing good is, that they have a special kids format with an age-barrier, so kids wont get outpriced that bad and have a fun interaction with a peer group of the same age. I love how my MTG Store has special Tournament Hours only for the Kids Qualifier groups, so that there are no Neckbeards around trying to take advantage of kids and their understanding for money, the game or god knows what ive experienced in my early YGO days playing against people that were 20 years older than me.
Sure some parents have deeper pockets than others, but you can manage to play the game with a tight budget, depending on the format.
That's blatantly wrong. PTCGL is the online card game, you don't hear much about it because it's basically free and there's no strong incentive to market it to you.
In person, the competitive scene in western countries is larger than MTG right now, and on the same scale as Riftbound. In Japan it's always been the biggest by an order of magnitude. The two big western open entry tournaments, EUIC / NAIC, sell out ~4,000 player tickets in a matter of seconds. Regionals tournaments that happen almost twice a month throughout the year sell out ~2K-3K player tickets in a matter of minutes.
My understanding is that Pokémon is surprisingly cheap if you want to actually play the game as they reprint staples to oblivion (often <100$ for tier one decks).
It’s all collection based , which in and of itself is not necessarily an indictment on the value of Pokémon cards, but is much closer to greater fool theory than I’m comfortable with .
The main reason is that these days every rare collectible card in Pokémon is an alternate version of a cheaper card from the same set. For example, N's Zoroark ex ASC 286/217 is a $120 card, but the same set has a more common, mechanically identical $1 card numbered 137/217.
This is very much intended so that collectors chasing the nice full art / textured rare cards flood the second hand market with the less desirable cheaper versions. Players can then easily buy those cards for almost nothing and with ample volume available.
Finally somebody who gets it. Today the definition of Content is view-optimized, click-bait, gapping mouth YT trash. I can't stand it anymore. I want real video of real people saying real, interesting things.
Yeah, our psyches evolved in times when the environment was relatively stable for your entire lifetime. Rate of change in the environment just keeps increasing, and our wiring just isn't made for that. Our internal prediction engine is less and less able to model the future based on the past. Painting with broad strokes here, but I think generally this is the upstream cause of a lot of the increased mental health issues we're seeing.
I think the idea is that, the current trajectory of technology is just making problems worse. More and more powerful, capable of pulling us further and further from a healthy equilibrium as we see with global warming etc.
Theoretically, if we can crack fusion or some other source of abundant, cheap energy, we could build many of the bandaid solutions proposed today that are not feasible due to energy constraints, while transitioning society to a more sustainable path. Tilt the curve as it were.
Our psyches unfortunately aren't built for the globalized world we live in, and unless we figure out some sort of collective awakening to transcend our egos... Our best hope is likely solutions that allow the march of progress, while slowing, stopping, and eventually undoing a bunch of damage humans have done to the biosphere over our history. Definitely a moon shot, but hopefully we can figure something out.
That's just a convenient talking point for our government. The model in Canada is effectively a regressive tax on consumers in the checkout line. It conveniently allows for our government to talk about how they don't subsidize farmers, and have a clean budget on that front, but I would prefer to see a model that was actually funded by government taxes such that it could be a progressive tax born more by wealthier Canadians rather than lower income ones being hit hardest.
I also have doubts that our current model is the best way of achieving the goals we had in mind when the programs were created in the 1970s. I know the error bars are quite sizeable, and it's not quite apples to apples, but recent studies that suggest our supply chain management in dairy, eggs, and poultry, costs approximately $244pp per year in higher costs. That's over $10billion per annum Canada wide, equivalent to 2% of the federal budget! I have been discussing this with someone in another thread for days, and the more I look into it, the more I feel like we really need to take another look at the implementation of this program. Dollar amount breaks my brain.
The elephant in the room is that the government is legally required to buy back the quota if change were to happen, and that is an estimated $50 billion dollar bill. Which actually doesn't sound so bad compared to your $10 billion per annum figure, but the $10B is hidden so it is easy to let it be ignored. A one time $50B payout will stick out like a sore thumb and no politician wants to attach their name to that.
When they did it for tobacco back in 2009 it was only around $300 million on the table which isn't nearly as mind boggling and thus much more easily forgotten. Not to mention that very few Canadians realized that tobacco was ever supply managed to begin with so it easily few under the radar. Anything that affects dairy will be headline news.
Yeah, I know that's a colossal elephant to deal with. I mean, I would hope that whatever reforms could lower costs enough that if you did a model similar to Australia, and had a temporary levy to pay for the buyout, the end cost to consumers, even with the levy, was lower prices than prior to the change. That was the case in Australia.
And I know nothing about the market, but I can't imagine it's overly liquid, the fact that all farmers would receive cash for their quota, would definitely be attractive to most. It's already heavily financialized and borrowed against.
And then, you could even do something like NZ did where all the dairy farmers got together and created a coop for processing, NZ is now the largest exporter of dairy in the world! If some of the quota levy went to getting this off the ground, you'd help the farmers retain a bigger piece of the pie with vertical integration of the supply chain. And, hopefully also compete globally and become net exporters, increasing the size of the pie.
I dunno, I have no idea what the fucking solution is, but after spending a bunch of time in the weeds of this shit over the past couple days, I am like, we have created a monster, this can't be the most effective way to achieve the underlying goals of the program.
> dairy farmers got together and created a coop for processing
That isn't going to go over well with the big three (Saputo, Agropur, Lactalis) who own ~75% of the processing quota. I suspect if you dig even deeper you will find it is they who hold the political capital that props up the dairy supply management system. If it were only farmers involved it would have been gone ages ago.
Agreed on all fronts. But, if we're entering an era where we have to be less reliant on our trade relationship with the US, we need innovation to compete, and the status quo of Oligopolies in so many fucking industries really needs to be confronted imo. Doubt it'll happen, but it's an increasingly ugly situation.
Protecting your own country's production capacity and industry doesn't come without cost. It likely would absolutely be cheaper if we allowed our core industries to fail and be replaced wholesale with American exporters, but that's not what the majority want for the country.
As we're seeing with this trade war as a whole, tightening economic integration with an asymmetric partner puts your sovereignty at risk as well. If we have no industries of our own, and are utterly dependent on a single unreliable superpower, then we lose the freedom to decide on our own future as the rug could be pulled out from under us at any time. The only way to mitigate that risk is to diversify trade and ensure self-sufficiency in our own industries.
Yes. I am well aware of this. I just find it hard to believe that dairy, poultry, and eggs are some special snowflake type of farm that requires the quota and supply chain management, while every other type of farm, we can manage with direct subsidies.
For reference, there are about 190k farms in Canada, 8% of those farms are dairy, poultry, and eggs whose viability is ensured with supply chain management. The other 92% of farms, are managed with direct government assistance (AgriStability, AgriInsurance, AgriInvest, and AgriRecovery). The latter costs the government $1.5-$2 billion most years. While the recent report on supply chain managed farms suggests the cost born by Canadians to be around $10 billion. Even if that number is off by an order of magnitude, we're looking at $1 billion for 8% of farms, and $1.5-$2 billion for the other 92% of farms.
All I'm saying is it seems like the solution to help ensure viability in dairy, egg, and poultry farming is wildly inefficient and merits a look from first principles. Is there a solution to achieve the same outcome at a lower cost? The world has changed drastically since the policies were implemented in the 1970s.
I admit I am far from an expert, but I have spent an inordinate amount of time reading about this shit out of curiosity in the past couple days. Broke my brain when I saw the numbers around the costs born by canadians in the checkout aisle due to supply chain management.
I am not sure if this factors into it but an interesting difference between dairy and eggs and most other types of farms is that those are highly perishable. Grain can be stored and released gradually to even out market gyrations but dairy is just lost if they don’t match supply closely with demand in real time.
Yeah, that's a fair point but it still seems like a huge delta.
And my rabbit hole over the last couple days has led me to spend a bunch of time looking into Fonterra, which is the farmers processing Coop that happened in NZ when they got rid of their quota system. It's turned NZ into the largest milk product exporter on earth, and their whole strategy is processing milk into more shelf stable products. Cheese and Butter is about 20% the remainder is skim milk powder, whole milk powder, whey protein, and caseins.
Anyhow, all of this is to say, that there are solutions that ensure no milk goes to waste by processing it into more shelf stable ingredients, all of which have massive demand on the global markets. Whether we do much of this in Canada, I am not sure, but, feels like a missed opportunity if not, and likely partially caused by a lack of necessity to innovate due to the artificial moat.
Eggs, haven't looked into but presumably similar to milk in that it can be processed into shelf stable powders.
But, on the poultry front, beef, pork, etc, are all in the 92% of farms group, managed by subsidies, so, while chickens have a shorter lifespan, I don't see why we can manage cow and pork farms with subsidies, but not chicken.
I'm not saying they're right to do so, but it sounds like their intuition was honed well if they pegged you correctly during your faux-pas era? Fascinating, wonder what the tell was.
Before they got state drivers licenses, they could only show their non-US ID/passport whenever they got carded for alcohol. A few times, the venue would just tack on a 20% service fee.
One time, they asked the table next to them if they also got a service fee: They didn't. They complained, got the service fee waived, then told them to forget about getting a tip at all.
You might guess a person might be a non-tipper, but giving shitty service or forcing a discriminatory service fee will make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> Europeans would be far less likely to tip (or tip generously).
Southern europeans tip, there wouldn't be much difference there
Northern ones it depends, they don't tip at home but they usually do on vacations to southern europe (where tipping culture very much exists). Though some of that also has to do with currency conversions, at least historically, even if the tradition has stuck past the euro being introduced. So maybe that's why they don't tip when it comes to dollars?
reply