onwchristian's comments

Note: back in the iPod days, iTunes did serve as a music store for the iPod, but you could buy MP3 files from other providers as well, and transfer them to the iPod via iTunes. This whole process didn't "cost" the provider or user any extra.

Now, it's true that iTunes did get significant traction because of convenience for users of iPods, however there were definitely options for other music distributors. In fact, back in those days, I tended to still buy CDs because they were DRM-free and similarly priced, and I could rip the songs at my selected quality settings to transfer to my iPod.

Note: this is a bit cherry-picking out of context, which I'll admit sometimes happens in Christian circles as well. But I think understanding the context and culture of the time can make things a bit more clear. Yes, the culture of the time had a different handling of gender roles, and some of that persists in other cultures around the world to this day. These were letters written to the Christians in the churches of the day. Likely the content would be written slightly differently if it were written to a church in the modern day USA.

For example: Ephesians 6 goes on from what you clipped: 25 For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word. 27 He did this to present her to himself as a glorious church without a spot or wrinkle or any other blemish. Instead, she will be holy and without fault. 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man who loves his wife actually shows love for himself. 29 No one hates his own body but feeds and cares for it, just as Christ cares for the church. 30 And we are members of his body.

This seems to me to indicate that husbands should be self-sacrificing and putting their wives' needs above their own. All the submission indicated here is similar to the way that Christ (the Son) submits to God the Father. These would have been very strong and shocking words in that culture, that normally would have allowed for husbands to have complete "rule" over their wives, and instead is urging husbands to self-sacrifice for their wives. So if anything, it would have been improving the standing of women rather than "keeping them down."

If you're married, have you ever willingly given up on your own desires, instead following your spouse's needs/wants? Have they ever done the same for you? This seems to be what this passage is encouraging.

I think there are some misconceptions of "Religion" here. I will readily admit that there are some cases where it has been used for predatory behavior, but one cannot generalize that.

I can vouch that many churches do not treat the tithe as an "entrance fee" and honestly many have no idea how much you make or force you to give that. More-so, it is up to the person to decide how much to give be it 1% or 50%.

I personally believe in God, I think there is enough evidence to point that direction. However, even if I were to not believe this way, I honestly feel that my lifestyle as a result is more fulfilling and enjoyable. As a result, I regularly get together with like-minded people from a variety of backgrounds and occupations that I probably would have never met otherwise, which has resulted in some of my closest friendships. I regularly get together with others in our homes for Bible study and "just hanging out" (fellowship in "Church words"). This small group of people has been instrumental in each others' lives when things are stressful by helping each other out (providing meals, childcare, or simply a listening ear).

My children also have a group of friends and an organization that aids me in helping teach a moral compass and values that are overall advantageous to our society, such as generosity, politeness, putting others first, being helpful, among other faith-oriented traits as well. This can stand as contrasts to some of the traits our children commonly see in our society or in various media forms (advertising, etc).

As far as tithing, I currently probably am "a bit below" 10%, though I'd like to increase it over time, because to me the value in my life and the value I see being provided to others makes it worth it. But I do not feel obligated to give.

While all these things potentially could be replicated in the "secular world," there is little incentive for people to become dedicated to it, and this is why by-in-large it is not replicated. The "organized" part of organized religion I think is the key here.

Also as contrast to the "predatory behavior" you speak of, a very large portion of the aid provided the poor or "less desirable in society" is provided by religious organizations (food banks, homeless shelters, etc). Many of these, because of their religious convictions and the convictions of their supporters are able to provide more services, more personal care, and more impactful results for much less money than many of the government initiatives. To be clear, I'm not proposing we get rid of the government initiatives. I'm mostly pointing out that in many cases, if practiced in alignment with the values they teach, religious activities are the opposite of predatory.

Note on contacts: because you're physically inserting a medical device into your eye, part of your annual exam is making sure that you are not causing any (potentially permanent) damage do your eye. While hopefully you are not abusing your contacts, even in normal use, sometimes the eyes can be harmed, which can cause major problems down the road for you. In my opinion, the expiration is probably a good thing if you're proponent of trying to protect people's eye health.

Disclaimer: my wife is an optometrist (in the US).

My guess is what you're seeing is a bit of a misrepresentation. My wife would be thrilled if VSP (or any other vision insurance) reimbursed even near that amount. You might be seeing a statement that the insurance plan saved you a certain amount (the standard price of the exam), but the optometrist is not making that money.

Instead, what they do is if the doctor wants to accept their insurance (VSP, EyeMed, Superior, etc), they have to agree to a contractual amount of reimbursement for a standard comprehensive vision and eye health exam, which is often on the order of $35-45 on average. The doctor also would get the copay amount (often $10). Similarly, if you add in contact lens evaluation into your exam, they will reimburse a bit more for that portion. However, it is very rarely even close to $258 unless you have a very specific condition/situation (for example medically-necessary contact lenses, etc).

Your optometrist will have had 4 years of post-graduate education (and probably the 6-figure student loans to match), where they would have learned how to diagnose and treat a wide variety of ocular and even systemic conditions that may first present themselves in the eye. So for the $50, you're getting a steal of a deal. While it is not entirely a loss-leader (an Optometrist can make an OK living this way if they have enough patients--though still lower than what most Software Engineers make), this is why you will often see an Optical in private practices, rather than exams only.

My wife's office obviously sells glasses, however it is worth mentioning that the prices that are presented are largely a result of the underlying wholesale costs of the materials, with some margin to account for labor and facilities. I cannot say that some of the materials from the manufacturers are not overpriced, but there are substantial quality differences between different frames and different lenses.

The advantage of getting your frames from the same place as your doctor is that any lens recommendations for your best quality of life can be relayed directly. Ideally the optician will then help you sort through the pros and cons of different lenses and frames, along with what your insurance may cover, to ultimately get you something that you'll love at a price you are comfortable with. This often is more important as you get older and have a need for progressive lenses. The measurements get trickier, and each lens type may have different advantages. Single-vision lenses are much less particular, and you may have more success with the online shops if you are in this life-stage.

This kind of personalization is not required by everyone, but some people really appreciate it.

Basically, some people will probably have success with the online shops. That's OK. However, they don't work well for everyone.

One more thought: very few purchases will have as much impact on your daily life as your glasses, they literally affect the way you perceive the world, as well as potentially how others perceive you (fashion). We all wish things we buy were cheaper, however the cost/value proposition on glasses is not that bad when you think of it this way. The final decision on how to spend your money is up to you, as the consumer, in the end.

Down Detector: http://downdetector.com/status/slack

Xfinity Mobile is just an MVNO (Mobile Virtual Network Operator) of Verizon. So it is Verizon's towers/networks that would be providing your connectivity, not Comcast. Comcast basically just handles your billing and customer service.

I'm not sure if this is a complete "scam." I think it mostly works out as similar to the costs of typical hotels.

- I would assume the timeshare companies often have more supply of rooms than they have paying "owners." For example certain destinations are only desirable during part of the year when the weather is favorable. So they may not be making this full amount in the math above.

- They have regular expenses beyond the room maintenance itself: overall building maintenance, resort amenities, staffing, utilities, cable/tv, etc.

- For comparison: a simple $150 hotel room for example would be $150 x 365 = $54,750. Similar to the timeshare, this one may not be 100% booked, though I don't know what booking/ownership rates are for timeshares vs. hotel rooms. In any case many timeshare units may have one or multiple bedrooms, a kitchen, a living area, etc. whereas the $150 hotel room is probably just a sleeping area. So you are likely getting "more space" with the timeshare.

Admittedly, many timeshares are scams, I won't deny that. But the evidence you provided for this one is not completely indicative of that. It still may not be a "good deal" based on how you prefer to travel, and if it's not certainly don't partake in it.

To me spending $100 x 12 = $1200 per year for your housing on vacation is not completely unreasonable compared to $150 x 7 = $1050, considering the extra amenities and opportunity to save money by cooking in the unit. It doesn't make the timeshare a "steal of a deal" (like some of the presentations make it out to be) but rather more of a "prepaid vacation" which may make sense in some situations. It seems like a "legitimate business" in this case to me, assuming the up-front costs to buy in are not too crazy. Country Clubs have been using a similar structure of "buying in" + recurring fees since before the timeshare industry even existed, and presumably these country clubs are legitimate businesses as well. There are good and bad players in the timeshare industry, like is the case in so many other industries as well.

My parents are Worldmark owners, so I've done some analysis on that one in particular. There is a decent amount of flexibility (destination) and the units have seemed pretty well-equipped. In the math I've done it seems to work out to not necessarily make your vacation "cheaper" but it doesn't make it "more expensive" either. They like it because they get more space and a kitchen to cook some of their own meals, and they use it as encouragement to take vacations to destinations they otherwise would not have thought about (and have very much enjoyed).

The timeshare company in the article though is clearly a major scam though! I trust that most people on HN can take a look at the math to weigh what may be a good deal for their personal situation.

That is not quite true. You might think it's not "indisputable" however there is evidence that corroborates many of the Biblical accounts as studied by academics and scholars [0]. Much of this is archeological, statistical, along with a significant amount sociological support as well. There is generally still some level of "faith" involved in religious beliefs (obviously), however it does not mean that those that hold them hold no scientific evidence at all.

It's possible that you have researched for yourself and have some evidence for your "beliefs" presented by your statement. Many people (admittedly on both sides of the fence) have not done much research in this regard, but in my opinion is a valuable exercise, so if you haven't I'd highly suggest it.

[0] The Case for Christ (Lee Strobel), along with The Case for Faith and the Case for a Creator. He was a former atheist who initially set out to prove God did not exist after his wife converted. This is certainly not an extensive list of resources out there, these are just some that I remember off the top of my head.

Agreed. I also think another big reason for personal car ownership is having kids. With the increasing ages/weights recommended and/or required by law for car seats, that can be a hassle if trying to use a ride sharing service. It increases difficulty with increased number of kids at varying ages. For those without kids, while it's not crazy difficult to install a car seat, it can still take upwards of 5-15 minutes (depending on the style of seat). This amount of time lost can be a big hindrance.

Yes, I know that Uber has started to tackle this problem, but as far as I know it only provides 1 car seat, and a car equipped this way may not always be nearby. Maybe this will be a completely solved problem soon, which would be great!

Honestly, I feel that adding cost (i.e. tax) really wouldn't discourage the drinking of soft drinks to much extent. Often the "cost" of soft drinks aren't even on the menu, and can often run upwards of $3+, and it doesn't seem to discourage things.

One area that could "help" (though at the same time I don't think that governments should regulate this), is for instance in the fast food meal concept of the "combo." I drink almost 100% water, and don't like soft drinks. When I occasionally eat fast food, I experience the following: (a) it is often difficult to navigate the menu, since it emphasizes the combos, and sometimes the price of individual items are not clearly labelled, and (b) I spend more time in line explaining what I want, sometimes having to insist several times that I do not want the combo meal. And to clarify, almost every time I've done the math, it works out advantageously from a price perspective for me to avoid the combo instead of just purchasing the combo and requesting water as the beverage. But given this experience, I can see how if you weren't dedicated to drinking water you would concede, and once you've paid for a drink, you "might as well" get a soft drink.

I'm also quite surprised at how frequently I run into situations at airports, food courts, sports venues, etc. where you either (a) the only form of water is bottled water and costs as much or more than soft drinks, (b) you can purchase a cup of water, but it costs you as much as a soft drink, or (c) in the most extreme cases water is not even available for consumption even if one wanted to pay. I recently experienced the latter. So perhaps if we were going to regulate something, perhaps it should be ensuring that all food establishments provide water as a beverage, and furthermore if we want to encourage consumption of water perhaps there should be some form of price cap, for instance that it can't be priced more than X% of cost to provide the "service." Though I typically think that regulation should be kept minimal, this may be something that could be good for the public.

If you move to one time zone, dates get complicated as well. You may have meetings scheduled on separate dates but in the same business day. Birthdays: they're now the afternoon of one day and the morning of the next.

Furthermore, while travelers may not have to change their wristwatch to account for the local time, they still would have to grasp "what time the locals do X." This may be more difficult for people to reason about if they can't easily draw on their expected scheduling from "back home." Simply knowing that 8:00 to 5:00 is a common work-day will no longer be easily translated, as it may be 11:00-20:00 one place and 05:00-14:00 somewhere else.

In any case, people are creatures of habit, so they tend to fight change. So I don't foresee this ever happening, regardless of whether it would solve some problems (and debatably it may cause as many problems as it solves).

ISP: Time Warner Location: Memphis, TN