You know what is a real photo? This one.

Shitter

Was there anything there to kill?

It makes sense that Trump wants to surrender. He’s a pussy.

* Native Americans have entered the chat. *

Throw those socks out, bro.

I bought three of the gen 1 Philips Hue when they first came out and all three died within two years. I hope they’re better now, but I’ll never buy Philips Hue again.

And in case you ask, they weren’t enclosed, they were in IKEA floor lamps. They were at 100% all the time, but I feel like if they can’t survive that, they shouldn’t be able to do it.

I guess Melania went over the prenup with him again.

Smart bulbs like this:

Have PCBs with small LEDs surface mounted to them. This means that the on-off cycle of the bulb causes heat deformation cycles of the PCB. This stresses the foils in the PCB and can eventually cause them to lose connection. That’s one of the reasons why they’ll often start flickering or lose the ability to be cool white, warm white, or specific colors (the different kinds of LEDs in them).

But bulbs like this (often called smart edison bulbs):

Use longer/larger LEDs that aren’t mounted to the PCBs, and will probably last much longer. They are better at not overheating their own electronics.

If you want the first kind to last longer, don’t run them above ~60% brightness.

If I did know, I wouldn’t need to consult them. Though, I’d imagine they use a similar technique to how I would appraise the value of a gaming PC, not that I’m an expert on consumer hardware pricing, but I’m fairly knowledgeable. But I would use historical data, performance metrics (although this wouldn’t apply to retro games), market conditions, conditions of the parts, and a certain amount of speculation.

The reason I’d look for a consensus is to account for outliers. If one expert is using some metric that causes them to over or under value a game, I’m less likely to get ripped off by having multiple expert opinions forming a consensus than if I relied on just that one expert’s opinion.

I mean, yeah, kind of. The market is an indicator of value, but it can be wrong for a number of reasons (false scarcity, price fixing, monopolistic pricing, speculative investments, etc). Earlier you asked me how I would determine value, and I told you “consensus”. The market is a form of consensus, but not the only form. If I’m unsure whether the market is correctly valuing something, I’d try to get an expert consensus. For example, that’s actually what I do when I’m trying to buy a rare video game, because that market is volatile as fuck, and isn’t a reliable indicator of value.

Ok, let me see if I can clear up the confusion. It is incredibly difficult to determine if something like the housing market is overvalued. Professional economists disagree with each other about that, and I am not a professional economist. I’m not even an amateur economist. You can ask me all you want, but I’m not going to take a stand on it, because I simply don’t know. Whether you will accept “maybe” as an answer is really up to you.

I also don’t know why houses are priced where they are. I know of a few of the factors, like how regulations have made it harder to build affordable housing, and, surprisingly, harder to build luxury housing even. Whatever the factors are that are affecting this market seems to have priced out most people. We can agree on that. Why that is (and whether homes are properly valued or overvalued) is what we can’t agree on, because again, I just don’t know.

Do you see how I said “That may be a case of something being overvalued. That can especially happen when there is artificially limited supply.”

At no point did I say, “That is a case of something being overvalued.”

Again, I never claimed they were overvalued. I do not know if they are overvalued. There are plenty of reasons the market can sustain things being overvalued though, like false scarcity or price fixing. If your definition of value means markets suffering from these practices are actually increasing value, then our definitions of value differ. So if that’s the case, I don’t think this argument is going to go anywhere.

I believe that is a false dichotomy.

I didn’t claim they are overvalued, I said that may be a case of overvaluation. Do you disagree that things can be overvalued? What do you think market corrections are in that case? It’s incredibly difficult to determine if a section of the market is overvalued before a market correction, and if I had that ability, I’d probably be rich.

If you are trying to sell something in the market, and you are not getting any interest, you have probably overvalued the item. You might be able to sell it at that price if you wait long enough, but not because that item has that value generally. In that case, you’ve probably overvalued that item, and would be able to sell it if you reached the value others perceive it to have.

If I sell a cup of water to a man dying of thirst for $100, I shouldn’t expect that my next cup of water will sell for $100 on the market. The cup of water doesn’t have $100 worth of value, it just fulfilled someone’s needs or desires at the time enough that they were willing to pay more than its value to get it.

That may be a case of something being overvalued. That can especially happen when there is artificially limited supply.

The consensus of the market. Prospective buyers. People can still buy things that are overvalued, but when the market is exerting pressure on you to lower its price, you know it’s overvalued.

I would say based on consensus. That’s how we determine it in real life (stocks, real estate, market values). If there’s one person in the world who would pay $1,000 for Swift’s shit, then that person just doesn’t know the value of it, because most people wouldn’t pay anything for it. I’d imagine most people would pay not to have it.

If I trick you into paying money for something by telling you it’s super valuable, I’m ripping you off, I’m not increasing the value of the item.