this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
926 points (100.0% liked)

Mildly Interesting

20120 readers
1261 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago (2 children)

How much money is she spending that just the savings add up to 60'000? Or is that just an error and that's the joke?

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 92 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It’s the price of the books she would have bought otherwise.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 23 points 7 months ago (6 children)

But she wouldn’t have?

Before Netflix I wasn’t buying hundreds of DVDs per year. It doesn’t make sense to claim that use of a service, even a free one, constitutes “savings” based on hypothetical behavior where you would have bought all the content individually at list price.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 57 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I understand your argument but my rebuttal is a simple no.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

That’s the thing, in a lot of cases you’d simply go without whether you wanted to or not. They use “savings” to illustrate how much it would have cost to buy all those books on their own, that’s it. They clearly wanted to read those books but they wouldn’t be able to afford them without a library. If they had the money to spend on them I’m sure they would have but they didn’t and that’s literally the whole point.

Not being able to afford something and not wanting that something are different and calling this “savings” is fine and makes complete sense.

Example: I’ve seen 1085 episodes of One Piece. Without Crunchyroll(and it’s low fees, compared to buying box sets I’d never rewatch) I’d never have been able to see all that content. I would have wanted to, but I couldn’t.

Or to mirror your own words more: Before Crunchyroll I never would have seen it as without the service to offer these savings I’d be shit out of luck.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Before Netflix

Before Netflix there were such obscure things called libraries.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I try not to. I worked there twice.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The first time was fun because I had a good manager and Netflix was still seen by them as the upstart and not a real competitor.

A couple of years later and things at a different location under a coke head manager made for a very different experience.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

How does someone working at blockbuster afford a coke addiction?

[–] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Fencing stolen goods between our store and a GameStop that was run by a former district manager of Blockbuster, plus her husband was a cop.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's just semantics.

"Save" often just means receiving whatever value free of charge.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’ve not seen it used that way

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I prefer to buy books to own. But books are expensive, so if a particular book feels like it's not something worth the money to keep, I just borrow it from the library instead. That's literally money saved for me. Yeah, you could argue that if the library wouldn't have been an option then maybe I wouldn't have bought the book at all, so no difference there, but it's still the difference between reading the book for free or not reading the book at all.

[–] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 19 points 7 months ago

Oh so just one grad school text book.

[–] InquisitiveApathy@lemm.ee 37 points 7 months ago (1 children)

My partner is in the Lit world and you drastically underestimate how much some people can read. If they are an avid reader and a long-standing member I can see it. Especially If they're using the retail price to calculate that it adds up quick. hardcovers can easily be $40-60.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

She also has a kid and has been going with the kid to the library since he was born to check out a bunch of books every week. He's in grade school now... I want to say he's 10?

[–] bisby@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

$6996.99 per year is $134.56 per week. If you get 5 books per week, that's $26.91 per book. Given the picture includes a single book costing $19.95, that feels very reasonable. Maybe it's 6 books a week, maybe some books are more expensive.

That's a very consistent habit though.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

They literally go every week and she and her husband and her kid all use it, so it would add up.

[–] lunarul@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I go to the library every week with my kids. We usually have 20-30 books checked out at a time. 5 books per week is nothing for a whole family.

[–] InquisitiveApathy@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's definitely where that amount is coming from if it's been well over a decade. Books are actually really fricken expensive!

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Especially children's books in terms of a per-page ratio. You check out 10 children's books, because your kid will get through them all in a few days, that could be $200 worth of books.

[–] InquisitiveApathy@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

With children's books most of the page count will be in illustrations. You'll go through them very quickly.