I would say it worked until the world changed in such a way that old systems were entirely dismantled.
But even in previous eras that system of wealth preservation only worked when it worked. If the invading army was never expelled, your land could be lost. And carrying all those valuables around with you while fleeing, well I'm sure people still got robbed sometimes. So it wasn't a foolproof solution. But there were limited options, and maybe not a better options.
Even now, what's the solution for wealth preservation in times of upheaval and displacement? I have no idea. Right now most of us trust in the banking system to some degree and that's only good as long as the system stands. If it collapses we're all boned and might wish for a bit more art, gold, and land to fall back on.
That is a good question. And I'm sure it's because the reality isn't much like what we perceive from TV and movies. And cartels and crime organizations are far from omnipotent.
They don't have infinite resources. And if they can't get at a person easily, trivially even, maybe it's just not worth the effort a lot of the time. Especially once the damage has been done.
It's not just TV and movies. Go Wiki browsing on organized crime some time. Here's [1] a fun starting point. These organizations go through extensive efforts, which at times has included things such as flipping decorated law enforcement officers, to 'get revenge'. I put that in quotes because I'd imagine it's not really about revenge, at least not entirely. It's the criminal analog of law enforcement. If you don't enforce your laws, there will be an increasingly large number of people that break them. And similar to a law it's not just the penalty people factor into consideration, but also the probability of getting caught.
During the dotcom bubble thousands of companies were way over valued, where are they now? Mostly gone. Amazon survived and evolved. They actually were the exception. That doesn't mean every company that you can imagine being in a similar boat to amazon is going to end up in the same boat as amazon or even close to it.
Not to mention when the dotcom bubble popped Amazon's stock price took a beating and didn't really surpass its dotcom bubble peak until fall 2009, 9 years later...
All airlines do, because they have decades of passenger data to work with and can estimate how many people won't show up, how many people will take compensation, etc. They have policies in place for every contingency.
Passengers don't like the idea of overbooking. But most passengers don't really understand how the sausage is made. And they don't care when the system works for them most of the time, just that it's not perfect, so booooo.
That's assuming people prefer having a chance of getting bumped off a flight they booked to paying a few bucks extra and having the same chance of just not getting that ticket in the first place. For me that system never "works for me". Maybe it works for some people, but for others, there's a good reason to hate it.
>I'm convinced that since citizens don't know their rights, that the government doesn't think we care about them, and uses that against us when we try defending them. It's the idea of... If you don't use them, you lose them.
Alternatively, some people are willing to give up some rights for a feeling of security.
Or some people are willing to curtail some rights because it hurts people they don't like a lot more than it hurts them.
Or some people imagine gutting rights they don't regularly seem to need will never come back to bite them. People aren't going to defend things they don't care about.
Or some people seem to imagine that if a certain right doesn't seem to benefit them directly that it's not worthwhile to defend.
Or some people seem to think that maintaining the status quo is a right that they need to defend, no matter how many people are harmed by the inequality in the current landscape.
I mean you're not wrong. But that's certainly not the only issue issue causing the erosion of liberty.
I agree that for 0.5-1 TB disk there really is no reason to not to get an SSD. However the price difference jumps significantly once you're looking at larger disks though. The cheapest 4TB SSD costs about to 8 times more than the cheapest 4TB HDD for example.
>When a WD Blue 1TB SATA 6 Gb/s 7200 RPM 64MB is $46 on Amazon and a Crucial MX500 1TB 3D NAND SATA 2.5 Inch is $134.
those are cherrypicked numbers because 1TB is at the very low end for HDD sizes. compare with a more typical HDD size (3TB or 4TB) and you'll see the differences become more obvious.
Wasn't the parent discussion about a new high-capacity HDD and the per-capacity cost of HDD vs SSD? I don't think that people satisfied with under 1TB are relevant to that topic.
In that market, people are comparing a pile of disks in an array to a pile of solid state storage needed to replace its capacity. The bulk price of storage inverts when it is cheaper to store hundreds of TB on huge SSDs rather than on huge HDDs. That would be the death of HDD, since nobody really wants spinning disks in their datacenter.
> a pile of disks in an array to a pile of solid state storage
It doesn't even need to be a pile of disks. Even for a PC the differences are big.
My computer has a 1 TB SSD which is a decent size for an SSD. It's still a bit tight for me, so I complement with a spinny rust NAS. If I had an HDD instead it would have been like 8 TB and I wouldn't necessarily need the NAS. I think that's what GP is hinting at when he says "me SSD needs". I think he's also complementing with HDD somewhere for bulk storage (be it external drive, NAS or even cloud storage)
If I'm GP, yeah; I use 250-500GB SSDs as primary disk and have a small NAS with a RAID1 of two 5 TB disks for slow archival storage. For that slow archive, though, I don't care what factor SSD price is to HDD price (as long as it's still >1.0).
Cost isn't linear with storage. On Newegg a 1 TB drive is $37, a 2 TB is $61, a 4TB is $84, a 6 TB is $158 for $26/TB. The metal shell of the HD costs a certain amount no matter how much storage is inside. Still not a full factor of 10 but certainly more significant.
You can't compare 1TB hard disks, they are comparatively expensive. The cheapest per TB I can find right now is 20 euros for HDD, and 120euro for SSD. So factor 6 if you buy the cheapest, respectively.
It's more expensive to run three schools. And if those three schools don't each have enough students, they're going to be underfunded as funding is largely based on the number of students.
So the problem starts multiplying.
1. Can't afford supplies, facilities, etc.
2. Can't afford to be properly staffed.
3. The school is invariably going to be under-performing and we've decided as a society that if your school isn't performing well we're going to penalize it by cutting funding, which exacerbates the funding problem.
4. You've got all sorts of people, fiscal hawks, tax payers, etc who don't really want to pay for education, let alone pay for half empty schools and all that overheard. No one really wants to subsidize a ghost town...
So the result is school districts that are too small to make sense being combined together to try and pool their resources and maintain quality and efficiency.
So if you live out in super rural or low population density areas, and families aren't churning out children like they're old school farmers or Catholics, then this is the sort of reality you'll have to deal with.
But even in previous eras that system of wealth preservation only worked when it worked. If the invading army was never expelled, your land could be lost. And carrying all those valuables around with you while fleeing, well I'm sure people still got robbed sometimes. So it wasn't a foolproof solution. But there were limited options, and maybe not a better options.
Even now, what's the solution for wealth preservation in times of upheaval and displacement? I have no idea. Right now most of us trust in the banking system to some degree and that's only good as long as the system stands. If it collapses we're all boned and might wish for a bit more art, gold, and land to fall back on.