Them : I have a great customer... Me : No, you don't. They left it up to a relative stranger to track down leads instead of searching LinkedIn or Monster or whatever else. You have a customer who doesn't actually care enough to use Google.
When I wanted to relocate (family reasons), I didn't have any contacts in the area I wanted to relocate to -- I worked with a great recruiter and had an interview scheduled for my current job before the job was even posted on the job boards.
Them : I have a great opportunity for you... Me : No you don't. Companies don't use recruiters when they want serious candidates, they use recruiters when they are looking for meat. They get their serious candidates through personal networking and personal recommendations. You would never hire a candidate for a "Great opportunity" through something as anonymous as a recruiter.
When my company needed to grow, we quickly ran out of personal recommendations and though we posted to the usual places, sifting through the hundreds of unqualified resumes got to be a chore. The company had worked with a recruiter off and on for over 10 years, and she sourced us some great candidates (including me).
Recruiters are kind of like travel agents -- you don't always need one, but when you do, a good one is worth their weight in gold.
... most people don't carry the same type of weapons that mass shooters do. I would feel pretty stupid if I got in a gunfight against a guy in level 3 body armor and carrying a fully automatic assault rifle while armed with a short barrel 9mm.)
I must have missed something. Since North Hollywood in 97, how many or what percentage of mass shootings have been committed with a fully-automatic weapon?
Does it matter? He's not describing a real situation he's faced, It's hypothetical using with a contrived situation to demonstrate as much contrast between a "short barrel 9mm" and some much more powerful weapon. In your mind, feel free to substitute with any weapon more powerful than a short barrel 9mm if it makes you feel better and the point still stands -- the mass-shooter is likely to arrive much better prepared (and planned) than bystanders.
That's the hypothesis. Unfortunately in reality, LEDs don't last anywhere near the advertised numbers, and tend to work poorly in many conditions like too cold or too wet.
My oldest LED is 6 years old, in an upstairs hallway light that sees at least a couple hours of use nearly every day (more in the winter than in the summer). So that's over 4000 hours, about 4X the lifetime of a typical incandescent. But for this particular lamp I don't even care about the cost of the bulb or the operating cost, it's the inconvenience of changing it since it's over the stairs and I need to go borrow a telescoping folding ladder from my parents to change it, so it's a major hassle.
My second oldest LED is around 4 years old. It's in an outdoor light fixture that sees around 6 hours of use every night - in temperatures ranging from around 25F in the winter to 90F+ in the summer. So it has around 8000 hours on it now, I'm not sure what it's rated for, but it subjectively "feels" as bright as when I installed it.
I've converted 90% of my house to LED's now, the remaining 10% are CFL's in little used areas of the house that I'm still waiting on them to die.
I've only had 1 LED die so far (plus a couple that were DOA when I installed them). Nearly all of my bulbs are Phillips, I've tried a few other brands, but have been most satisfied with the Phillips bulbs.
I'm not my grandmother, I don't own any 3 way lamps - which is probably why the 3-way LED's cost so much, not much demand. Though the 3 way LED's seem to cost between $8 - $20. So maybe it'll take 2 years to recoup your costs instead of 2 months.
They're referring to upfront cost of course, as you are are aware.
However it IS common to compare the cheapest bulb you can get when comparing prices, but compare the manufacturer claimed life expectancy improvements from high end bulbs.
The cheap POS LEDs do NOT last 5x longer. I wouldn't even give them 2x.
The higher quality LED bulbs are great, but make the cost analysis closer (and of course 5x is still BS)
And I say this as someone with a handful of incandescent still burning, no remaining CFLs (hated them so much...) and almost entirely LEDs at this point.
LEDs are the better direction but it's not as overwhelming an analysis as it is made out to be. Particularly as they have significantly more efficient incandescents that became available once that sluggish industry realized it was being regulated out of existence and tried to adjust (too late). Comparisons are of course not done against the more efficient incandescent bulbs. LED still wins those comparisons, but the story is again reduced when this is done.
I compared the cheapest *incandescent* bulb I could find against name-brand Phllips LED bulbs, which I've used for the past 6 years or so (back when they cost $20+ a bulb). So this wasn't a case of cherrypicking cheap LED's. The cost savings from the lower power consumption is so great that there's no need to skimp on the LED bulb.
I gave my figures, feel free to post your own analysis to show your point, but don't expect a big difference -- an "efficient incandescent" still still uses 43W for a 60W "equivalent", they do have longer life (2000 hours), which will help a bit with the fixed cost, but they cost around $2 for a name-brand bulb, so they're not cheap.
The big problem with the dimable ones is that, iirc, you also have to replace your dimmer switches. That adds expense even if you know how to replace one yourself (the dimmers were like $20+ last time I looked), let alone if you have to call an electrician.
Probably still worth it in the long run for the energy savings, but it does change the equation.
It's getting hard to find non-LED compatible dimmers these days, but you can buy a cheap LED compatible one for $7:
A 16 pack of Phillips 60W (8.5W actual) LED's costs $25.37 ($1.59 / Bulb) on Amazon.
Probably some non-dimmable pieces of shit...
I only have 2 dimmers in my house, so dimmable bulbs really aren't that important to me. But if you want dimmables, feel free to re-do the numbers for dinnable bulbs. Here, I'll do most of the work for you, I found a 6 pack of 9.5W Dimmable Phillips 60W bulbs for $23, or $3.85/each.
Interesting, I did not know about the UV danger. I don't like them 'cause they run super-hot and need a porcelain socket to prevent melting / fire hazard. They're not really more efficient than regular bulbs, too.
CAP === 'typifies'
Capsule Halogens (that are bulit into a standard bulb formfactor) don't run any hotter than a standard bulb -- a 100W bulb can only put out 100W of heat, the halogen is more efficient so it puts out a little less heat. Yes, that capsule within the bulb gets very hot - hundreds of degrees.... but any incandescent filiament hits thousands of degrees, so it's not just the temperature that heats the base, it's the amount of energy dissipated.
So yes, a 500W halogen lamp gets very hot... but so would a 500W incandescent bulb (or even a 500W (real-power) LED)
Efficient halogens tend to be around 20% more efficient than standard incandescents, and last longer. Not sure if you consider 20% to be "really more efficient" or not.
It's easy to make in incandescent light bulb that lasts for decades or even centuries -- just run a lower voltage. For example, take an iron bar and run enough current through it to glow red, maybe seal it in an oxygen-free glass bulb...That will give out light for a long long time. Of course, you may be running a few thousand watts of power through it to get a tiny amount of light, but that's the cost of longevity.
A standard 60W incandescent bulb will put out around 850 lumens and last for around 1100 hours. You can get a "long life" variant that is rated to last for 4000 hours.... but it'll only emit around 450 lumens, so is about half as efficient.
If you don't care about efficiency or brightness, you can make an LED last much longer... there's some 20 year old equipment in our electrical room with old red indicators LED's that are still burning after 20 years of 24x7 operation.
Countries that overwork their workforce pay out the back end in health care costs and the market inefficiencies resulting from having a bunch of stressed out sleep deprived yahoos running around doing stupid things.
But when they push the cost of healthcare onto that same workforce, the government doesn't care, the workforce only looks at their take-home pay and doesn't realize that their high healthcare costs are in effect a pay cut.
The price is coming down. Only 18 times as much now.
They are only more expensive if you don't know how to do math (or if someone else pays your power bill).
A 16 pack of Phillips 60W (8.5W actual) LED's costs $25.37 ($1.59 / Bulb) on Amazon.
You can get a 24 pack of incandescent 60W bulbs on eBay for around 75 cents a piece. So that makes the purchase price of LEDs twice has much as incandescents.
But since the LED uses 52 watts less power, if you pay $0.10/KWh for electricity, you'd break even after the first 161 hours of using the bulb.
The incandecent bulb will last around 1100 hours (and you'll have saved around $5.70 in electricity over that time), but the LED will last an average of 10X longer. But even if you only got 1100 hours out of it, you'd still come out ahead. (you can get "long-life" 4000hour incandescent's, but they are much less efficient, putting out about half the light as a standard bulb)
In most cities, Taxi drivers have no driver training at all. In which country is that? I would like to avoid it!
That's in the USA -- no driver training is required in most (all?) states to obtain a driver license, all that's required is a trivial road test -- my practical test was completely on a closed track at the driver testing center with no on-road component. And likewise, all that's required to become a taxi driver is a driver's license.
There are speed bumps near where I work and the delivery drivers don't slow down for them. We get the sudden, loud bangs as their trucks hit a bump at speed and all the stuff they are delivering gets smashed up.
They don't care because the delivery companies want speed above all else. The trucks and vans belong to the companies who must spend a fortune on maintenance.
Isn't that the opposite problem from "gig drivers"? When a driver is responsible for their own vehicle, they are more likely to take care of it, if it's an employer vehicle, then why should the driver care?
On the other hand, company drivers may be *more* incented to avoid an accident as their employer is likely to take a damage-causing accident more seriously than a self-employed rideshare driver, who may shrug off a dented fender on his own car since it doesn't affect the operation of the car.
There's plenty of stories of people who get into accidents as passengers in an uber, the driver's auto insurance won't pay out, and so the passenger is also sued for the accident.
As opposed to Taxi drivers that move months of professional driver training? In most cities, Taxi drivers have no driver training at all.
on personal insurance. Sooner or later one of them is going to cause a big enough wreck that nobody wants to pay for it and the person they hit is screwed. Nevermind that when you get hit by an Uber driver they've got incentive to try and drive off....
That's why Uber and Lyft offer liability insurance above and beyond driver personal policies.
Uber has been in business for 9 years now, Lyft for 6 years, it's a little late in the game to say "Sooner or later something bad is going to happen", they've been around long enough that you can point to concrete examples.
Nevermind that when you get hit by an Uber driver they've got incentive to try and drive off....
Don't all drivers have that incentive? And the same disincentives against doing so since they face prosecution for leaving the scene of an accident if caught.
42% of "gig-economy" couriers and taxi drivers reported vehicle damage because of a collision
How does that compare to the general public? how about when corrected per vehicle mile/hour?
Of course an Uber or Taxi driver is going to be more likely to get into a collision since they drive more. I drive 20 minutes in the morning and evening on familiar routes that I've driven hundreds of times before. I deliberately avoid congested downtown areas when I drive, choosing off-peak times to drive downtown whenever possible.
A car-share driver is in the car all day long, called out to areas throughout the city and beyond in areas were he may have never been, and his busiest time is also the most congested time, he can't change his work hours to avoid congestion since that's exactly the times his customers most want to travel.
What's the problem with not owning stuff that has no physical form?
I own 300+ CD's and 200+ DVD's, and they are sitting in a box in the garage because I literally have no use for them -- I ripped them all to digital files, but I rarely even access the files since most of the time when I want to listen or watch something, I just get it from some streaming service. The movies I own on DVD are so old that they are generally available for free on some streaming service (Netflix or Amazon), and I don't think I own any CD's for bands that aren't already on streaming services.
I used to have hundreds of books too, but got tired of hauling them around when I move and got rid of nearly all of them, there are a few books I used to own on paper, and when I wanted to reread them, I bought a Kindle copy since it's so much more convenient. I've switched to Kindle Unlimited so I don't even have the tenuous "ownership" of purchased Kindle books and I'm fine with that, I don't need to accumulate them. The only reason I've held onto my physical DVD's/CD's is so I can prove that I own them since I've ripped them all (which itself is of dubious legality)
For physical products like a couch and TV, I do own that since that's an entirely different situation -- I can't pay a furniture store for a virtual couch that I can sit on.
How much you pay is *one* value -- but not necessarily the fair market value. You could pay $1M for a home and discover that it's on an unstable hillside and you need to tear it down. Or you could buy a $1M house from your grandma for $200, but that doesn't mean that the house is worth $200.
Can I tell my local municipality that my house is also worth $200 so they will adjust my property tax accordingly?
Of course you can, your county assessor will have a dispute process that you can use the dispute the assessed value of your home -- when the market crashes, lots of people ask for reassessments based on current market value. You can always claim that the true market value of your house is $200.
Of course there's a big difference between telling the assessor that your house is worth $200, and the assessor agreeing with you.
Most of the new ones are wireless. I work in a job where I get TONS of email and I had the same problem as you. E-mails constantly buzzing, forcing me to take my phone out of my pocket. My smartwatch allows me to see my notifications without taking out my phone saving me time and battery life. I can use watch navigation to get directions while I'm riding on 2 wheels.
I had the same problem, but I found a better solution.
Settings -> Apps and Notifications -> Email -> App Info -> Notifications Off
It may not need to be memorized, but it does need to be typed into every Wifi device you own, sometimes through a clunky on screen or "scroll through the letters" LCD interface.
If the device's UI is that bad you have to wonder if their security is any better. Best to keep them off the network, or create a severely restricted second SSID just for them.
My printer has a 16 character LCD display and 5 buttons, that's all it needs, I don't want or need a better UI (and don't feel like paying any extra for it), and I don't see how I can make any assumptions between the quality of the UI and the security of the product.
In any case, all of my non-computer devices do live on their own SSID. Yet I still want that SSID to be secure.
Why not just count paper ballots like Canada does? Each precinct tallies up their counts and reports them upstream where they are aggregated. The manual counts are supervised by representatives from each party. Publish all of the counts and subtotals so they can be verified. Even if there are a 100 million ballots to count, by distributing the work, it can still be done in a timely manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Them : I have a great customer...
Me : No, you don't. They left it up to a relative stranger to track down leads instead of searching LinkedIn or Monster or whatever else. You have a customer who doesn't actually care enough to use Google.
When I wanted to relocate (family reasons), I didn't have any contacts in the area I wanted to relocate to -- I worked with a great recruiter and had an interview scheduled for my current job before the job was even posted on the job boards.
Them : I have a great opportunity for you...
Me : No you don't. Companies don't use recruiters when they want serious candidates, they use recruiters when they are looking for meat. They get their serious candidates through personal networking and personal recommendations. You would never hire a candidate for a "Great opportunity" through something as anonymous as a recruiter.
When my company needed to grow, we quickly ran out of personal recommendations and though we posted to the usual places, sifting through the hundreds of unqualified resumes got to be a chore. The company had worked with a recruiter off and on for over 10 years, and she sourced us some great candidates (including me).
Recruiters are kind of like travel agents -- you don't always need one, but when you do, a good one is worth their weight in gold.
I must have missed something. Since North Hollywood in 97, how many or what percentage of mass shootings have been committed with a fully-automatic weapon?
Does it matter? He's not describing a real situation he's faced, It's hypothetical using with a contrived situation to demonstrate as much contrast between a "short barrel 9mm" and some much more powerful weapon. In your mind, feel free to substitute with any weapon more powerful than a short barrel 9mm if it makes you feel better and the point still stands -- the mass-shooter is likely to arrive much better prepared (and planned) than bystanders.
I just want to point out that you ignored every single point I raised, and just gave us a long "my story" post.
This is great on your average mass media discussion board for average joes. But this is supposed to be a site for nerds.
I didn't ignore it, I gave anecdotal evidence that you're wrong, which is more evidence than you gave.
That's the hypothesis. Unfortunately in reality, LEDs don't last anywhere near the advertised numbers, and tend to work poorly in many conditions like too cold or too wet.
My oldest LED is 6 years old, in an upstairs hallway light that sees at least a couple hours of use nearly every day (more in the winter than in the summer). So that's over 4000 hours, about 4X the lifetime of a typical incandescent. But for this particular lamp I don't even care about the cost of the bulb or the operating cost, it's the inconvenience of changing it since it's over the stairs and I need to go borrow a telescoping folding ladder from my parents to change it, so it's a major hassle.
My second oldest LED is around 4 years old. It's in an outdoor light fixture that sees around 6 hours of use every night - in temperatures ranging from around 25F in the winter to 90F+ in the summer. So it has around 8000 hours on it now, I'm not sure what it's rated for, but it subjectively "feels" as bright as when I installed it.
I've converted 90% of my house to LED's now, the remaining 10% are CFL's in little used areas of the house that I'm still waiting on them to die.
I've only had 1 LED die so far (plus a couple that were DOA when I installed them). Nearly all of my bulbs are Phillips, I've tried a few other brands, but have been most satisfied with the Phillips bulbs.
Great. Now look up the prices of 3-way LED bulbs.
I'm not my grandmother, I don't own any 3 way lamps - which is probably why the 3-way LED's cost so much, not much demand. Though the 3 way LED's seem to cost between $8 - $20. So maybe it'll take 2 years to recoup your costs instead of 2 months.
They're referring to upfront cost of course, as you are are aware.
However it IS common to compare the cheapest bulb you can get when comparing prices, but compare the manufacturer claimed life expectancy improvements from high end bulbs.
The cheap POS LEDs do NOT last 5x longer. I wouldn't even give them 2x.
The higher quality LED bulbs are great, but make the cost analysis closer (and of course 5x is still BS)
And I say this as someone with a handful of incandescent still burning, no remaining CFLs (hated them so much...) and almost entirely LEDs at this point.
LEDs are the better direction but it's not as overwhelming an analysis as it is made out to be. Particularly as they have significantly more efficient incandescents that became available once that sluggish industry realized it was being regulated out of existence and tried to adjust (too late). Comparisons are of course not done against the more efficient incandescent bulbs. LED still wins those comparisons, but the story is again reduced when this is done.
I compared the cheapest *incandescent* bulb I could find against name-brand Phllips LED bulbs, which I've used for the past 6 years or so (back when they cost $20+ a bulb). So this wasn't a case of cherrypicking cheap LED's. The cost savings from the lower power consumption is so great that there's no need to skimp on the LED bulb.
I gave my figures, feel free to post your own analysis to show your point, but don't expect a big difference -- an "efficient incandescent" still still uses 43W for a 60W "equivalent", they do have longer life (2000 hours), which will help a bit with the fixed cost, but they cost around $2 for a name-brand bulb, so they're not cheap.
The big problem with the dimable ones is that, iirc, you also have to replace your dimmer switches. That adds expense even if you know how to replace one yourself (the dimmers were like $20+ last time I looked), let alone if you have to call an electrician.
Probably still worth it in the long run for the energy savings, but it does change the equation.
It's getting hard to find non-LED compatible dimmers these days, but you can buy a cheap LED compatible one for $7:
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Le...
Which means the workforce rightfully demands greater compensation from the corporations instead of giving more compensation to the share holders.
This is the USA -- generally the workforce is not in a position to "demand" anything. Those that do that have power are already well compensated.
They had LED bulbs before any incandescent bulb ban was in place.
And they were much more expensive than they are today. My local big-box store sells house brand LED"s for around $1/each
A 16 pack of Phillips 60W (8.5W actual) LED's costs $25.37 ($1.59 / Bulb) on Amazon.
Probably some non-dimmable pieces of shit...
I only have 2 dimmers in my house, so dimmable bulbs really aren't that important to me. But if you want dimmables, feel free to re-do the numbers for dinnable bulbs. Here, I'll do most of the work for you, I found a 6 pack of 9.5W Dimmable Phillips 60W bulbs for $23, or $3.85/each.
Interesting, I did not know about the UV danger.
I don't like them 'cause they run super-hot and need
a porcelain socket to prevent melting / fire hazard.
They're not really more efficient than regular bulbs, too.
CAP === 'typifies'
Capsule Halogens (that are bulit into a standard bulb formfactor) don't run any hotter than a standard bulb -- a 100W bulb can only put out 100W of heat, the halogen is more efficient so it puts out a little less heat. Yes, that capsule within the bulb gets very hot - hundreds of degrees.... but any incandescent filiament hits thousands of degrees, so it's not just the temperature that heats the base, it's the amount of energy dissipated.
So yes, a 500W halogen lamp gets very hot... but so would a 500W incandescent bulb (or even a 500W (real-power) LED)
Efficient halogens tend to be around 20% more efficient than standard incandescents, and last longer. Not sure if you consider 20% to be "really more efficient" or not.
And incandescent lights have burned continuosly for over 115 years, that means a wee bit more than 22 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest-lasting_light_bulbs
It's easy to make in incandescent light bulb that lasts for decades or even centuries -- just run a lower voltage. For example, take an iron bar and run enough current through it to glow red, maybe seal it in an oxygen-free glass bulb...That will give out light for a long long time. Of course, you may be running a few thousand watts of power through it to get a tiny amount of light, but that's the cost of longevity.
A standard 60W incandescent bulb will put out around 850 lumens and last for around 1100 hours. You can get a "long life" variant that is rated to last for 4000 hours.... but it'll only emit around 450 lumens, so is about half as efficient.
If you don't care about efficiency or brightness, you can make an LED last much longer... there's some 20 year old equipment in our electrical room with old red indicators LED's that are still burning after 20 years of 24x7 operation.
Countries that overwork their workforce pay out the back end in health care costs and the market inefficiencies resulting from having a bunch of stressed out sleep deprived yahoos running around doing stupid things.
But when they push the cost of healthcare onto that same workforce, the government doesn't care, the workforce only looks at their take-home pay and doesn't realize that their high healthcare costs are in effect a pay cut.
The price is coming down. Only 18 times as much now.
They are only more expensive if you don't know how to do math (or if someone else pays your power bill).
A 16 pack of Phillips 60W (8.5W actual) LED's costs $25.37 ($1.59 / Bulb) on Amazon.
You can get a 24 pack of incandescent 60W bulbs on eBay for around 75 cents a piece. So that makes the purchase price of LEDs twice has much as incandescents.
But since the LED uses 52 watts less power, if you pay $0.10/KWh for electricity, you'd break even after the first 161 hours of using the bulb.
The incandecent bulb will last around 1100 hours (and you'll have saved around $5.70 in electricity over that time), but the LED will last an average of 10X longer. But even if you only got 1100 hours out of it, you'd still come out ahead. (you can get "long-life" 4000hour incandescent's, but they are much less efficient, putting out about half the light as a standard bulb)
In most cities, Taxi drivers have no driver training at all.
In which country is that? I would like to avoid it!
That's in the USA -- no driver training is required in most (all?) states to obtain a driver license, all that's required is a trivial road test -- my practical test was completely on a closed track at the driver testing center with no on-road component. And likewise, all that's required to become a taxi driver is a driver's license.
There are speed bumps near where I work and the delivery drivers don't slow down for them. We get the sudden, loud bangs as their trucks hit a bump at speed and all the stuff they are delivering gets smashed up.
They don't care because the delivery companies want speed above all else. The trucks and vans belong to the companies who must spend a fortune on maintenance.
Isn't that the opposite problem from "gig drivers"? When a driver is responsible for their own vehicle, they are more likely to take care of it, if it's an employer vehicle, then why should the driver care?
On the other hand, company drivers may be *more* incented to avoid an accident as their employer is likely to take a damage-causing accident more seriously than a self-employed rideshare driver, who may shrug off a dented fender on his own car since it doesn't affect the operation of the car.
There's plenty of stories of people who get into accidents as passengers in an uber, the driver's auto insurance won't pay out, and so the passenger is also sued for the accident.
Can you post some of these? I didn't see any with a quick google search: https://www.google.com/search?...
With little training driving
As opposed to Taxi drivers that move months of professional driver training? In most cities, Taxi drivers have no driver training at all.
on personal insurance. Sooner or later one of them is going to cause a big enough wreck that nobody wants to pay for it and the person they hit is screwed. Nevermind that when you get hit by an Uber driver they've got incentive to try and drive off....
That's why Uber and Lyft offer liability insurance above and beyond driver personal policies.
Uber has been in business for 9 years now, Lyft for 6 years, it's a little late in the game to say "Sooner or later something bad is going to happen", they've been around long enough that you can point to concrete examples.
Nevermind that when you get hit by an Uber driver they've got incentive to try and drive off....
Don't all drivers have that incentive? And the same disincentives against doing so since they face prosecution for leaving the scene of an accident if caught.
42% of "gig-economy" couriers and taxi drivers reported vehicle damage because of a collision
How does that compare to the general public? how about when corrected per vehicle mile/hour?
Of course an Uber or Taxi driver is going to be more likely to get into a collision since they drive more. I drive 20 minutes in the morning and evening on familiar routes that I've driven hundreds of times before. I deliberately avoid congested downtown areas when I drive, choosing off-peak times to drive downtown whenever possible.
A car-share driver is in the car all day long, called out to areas throughout the city and beyond in areas were he may have never been, and his busiest time is also the most congested time, he can't change his work hours to avoid congestion since that's exactly the times his customers most want to travel.
What's the problem with not owning stuff that has no physical form?
I own 300+ CD's and 200+ DVD's, and they are sitting in a box in the garage because I literally have no use for them -- I ripped them all to digital files, but I rarely even access the files since most of the time when I want to listen or watch something, I just get it from some streaming service. The movies I own on DVD are so old that they are generally available for free on some streaming service (Netflix or Amazon), and I don't think I own any CD's for bands that aren't already on streaming services.
I used to have hundreds of books too, but got tired of hauling them around when I move and got rid of nearly all of them, there are a few books I used to own on paper, and when I wanted to reread them, I bought a Kindle copy since it's so much more convenient. I've switched to Kindle Unlimited so I don't even have the tenuous "ownership" of purchased Kindle books and I'm fine with that, I don't need to accumulate them. The only reason I've held onto my physical DVD's/CD's is so I can prove that I own them since I've ripped them all (which itself is of dubious legality)
For physical products like a couch and TV, I do own that since that's an entirely different situation -- I can't pay a furniture store for a virtual couch that I can sit on.
How much you pay doesn't equal it's value.
That's exactly what it equals!
How much you pay is *one* value -- but not necessarily the fair market value. You could pay $1M for a home and discover that it's on an unstable hillside and you need to tear it down. Or you could buy a $1M house from your grandma for $200, but that doesn't mean that the house is worth $200.
Can I tell my local municipality that my house is also worth $200 so they will adjust my property tax accordingly?
Of course you can, your county assessor will have a dispute process that you can use the dispute the assessed value of your home -- when the market crashes, lots of people ask for reassessments based on current market value. You can always claim that the true market value of your house is $200.
Of course there's a big difference between telling the assessor that your house is worth $200, and the assessor agreeing with you.
Most of the new ones are wireless. I work in a job where I get TONS of email and I had the same problem as you. E-mails constantly buzzing, forcing me to take my phone out of my pocket. My smartwatch allows me to see my notifications without taking out my phone saving me time and battery life. I can use watch navigation to get directions while I'm riding on 2 wheels.
I had the same problem, but I found a better solution.
Settings -> Apps and Notifications -> Email -> App Info -> Notifications Off
It may not need to be memorized, but it does need to be typed into every Wifi device you own, sometimes through a clunky on screen or "scroll through the letters" LCD interface.
If the device's UI is that bad you have to wonder if their security is any better. Best to keep them off the network, or create a severely restricted second SSID just for them.
My printer has a 16 character LCD display and 5 buttons, that's all it needs, I don't want or need a better UI (and don't feel like paying any extra for it), and I don't see how I can make any assumptions between the quality of the UI and the security of the product.
In any case, all of my non-computer devices do live on their own SSID. Yet I still want that SSID to be secure.
Why not just count paper ballots like Canada does? Each precinct tallies up their counts and reports them upstream where they are aggregated. The manual counts are supervised by representatives from each party. Publish all of the counts and subtotals so they can be verified. Even if there are a 100 million ballots to count, by distributing the work, it can still be done in a timely manner.