For the affected population, it’s around 10 percentage points—or double.
So people who sports bet are twice as likely to be delinquent as those who don’t. I’ll give you that the effect is smaller than I expected.
Here’s the thing though…it’s not like that trend is slowing down. The finalization of prediction markets and continued normalization of betting as a pro-social behavior is currently headed to the moon…so we should ask if it’s causing major side effects.
Smoking makes someone 25x more likely to develop lung cancer. Right now it looks like sports betting makes you 2x more likely to be delinquent on your car loan. At what incidence does that become anti-social enough to try to curb?
I hear the slot machine thing a lot but I don’t get it.
I use Claude Code every day for coding because it makes me way more productive. But I don’t resonate with the slot machine effect. Can you expand on what mechanism you see that give it a slot machine effect? Is it for all users or just a subset?
For people who want to ask a model for an app, or a website, or something at a level of “hey you make apps right, I have had this idea for years…” the experience is akin to a slot machine — sometimes they get what they imagined their description would create and it works, and sometimes they get a hollow chocolate approximation.
I think Warhol’s quote is nostalgic but incomplete.
I’m priced out of the best cars, best houses, best home theater systems, best schools. Even someone making $300k/year can’t afford all of the best of everything.
Sure, the iPhone has been “the best” possible phone which was also used by nearly everyone, but I think that’s an anomaly even in the short run.
Right now I’m paying $200/mo for Claude code to do an amount of work I would’ve had to pay $10,000/mo for. Of course I’m expecting those numbers to get closer to each other.
It’s a common tactic. Shock an industry with a new product and advertise it as being very affordable. Once you get a solid consumer base with enough organizations that have rebuilt their operations around it, slowly increase the cost and find more ways to produce revenue.
It all depends. Yes, something like that happened with Uber, but computers and consumer electronics have Moore's law working for them, so prices usually go down. (With occasional shortages like we see now with RAM - not for the first time, but it's usually temporary.)
My guess is that AI will be more like consumer electronics than like Uber.
I agree that consumer goods normally get cheaper over time. Software that becomes commercialized, or sees a surge in enterprise demand, tends to go the other way. Splunk, Elasticsearch, and Slack for example.
It has a real “where the wild things are” feel…which is the art used to decorate my local library.
A lot of people have chosen to take the Hobbit as seriously as its older brother—-including Peter Jackson—-and have missed out on the absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing.
The Hobbit does a wonderful job of introducing the ideas and characters of LotR in a way which is accessible for children and I think the art presented here is a valid artistic take on a children’s book about a dragon.
"absurd, beautiful childishness of the whole thing"
There is the bed-jumping scene, so there is childishness in the movies too. (I also hated that scene; I started to root for Sauron when I saw that scene.)
> I was under the impression that The Hobbit was the first book in this saga?
Yes: But the Hobbit is much shorter and is a much easier read. It also was edited after LOTR was published to fix some minor plot holes.
WRT the movies: Peter Jackson added a lot to the "Hobbit" trilogy that wasn't in the book, such as the whole story arc about Gandalf when he wasn't with the dwarves, or the other wizards. The book isn't the epic that the movie makes it out to be.
It’s as valid as any art. But as an illustrated book, it’s lacking.
If I had read this version as a kid, I’d be extremely confused as to why Gollum was 20 feet tall and wearing a flower crown. And then I’d be mad and consider it a bad illustration. (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”)
If there’s a character in a book who is known for wearing a red shirt, you might think it’s interesting to subvert expectations and give him a green shirt. But when the picture with the green shirt appears next to text describing a red shirt, it fails as an illustration. Especially in a book meant for children.
Tolkien and Jansson shared one thing: people did translations of their work which they totally hated
So it's sort-of funny that she wound up pissing him off with artwork which didn't fit his mental model, when they both experienced people trying to do the translation and failing to hit the mark.
(I think I read this of both of them, in respective biographies)
"I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size"
Well, he was a hobbit once, right? So a 10 meters tall Gollum makes less sense than a Gollum that has about the same size as other hobbits, give or take.
That's a retcon. There was no indication that he was a hobbit in The Hobbit (and as others have mentioned, in the original there was no physical description at all.)
This version says it’s the 1937 edition. It has the pre change story about Gollum offering the ring which Tolkien said is what he changed. But it also says he was a small slimy creature.
Yeah it's entirely possible the version that I have that is supposed to be from 1937 was tainted with later versions despite it not containing any of the more well known 1951 changes. That is maybe someone reconstructed it by taking a 1966 copy and undoing the changes, but forgot about the small slimy creature change.
But apparently there were dozens of different versions that actually ended up in print that had different amounts of the changes caused by some printers mixing old plates and new. So it's entirely possible that small slimy appeared in some versions around 1951 but not others and that's what that page is working off of.
(It's difficult to find an excellent authoritative link clearly explaining that the change was in the 1966 edition - there is 'The History of The Hobbit' by John D. Rateliff, but I can't find it online)
That’s not correct as far as I can tell. I found a 1937 version complete with the original “Gollum offers to give him the ring” and small slimy creature was there.
> (I’m aware some people think the original version didn’t specify his size. But the 1937 text states “Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum, a small slimy creature.”)
This directly contradicts the article. I found the first edition online, and have determined you are mistaken.
Also (referencing a side comment) the only mention of the size of Gollum's boat in that PDF (and it may not even be his boat - I'm not an expert on the source material, just going off mentions of "boat" near "Gollum") seems to be "little black boat" but that's pretty quickly followed by it fitting 4 people at a time which isn't all that "little", really, and I think the large Gollum in the illustration could fit in a 4 person boat (albeit in a perhaps top-heavy fashion.)
It’s not a primary source is a scan of a 2016 reprint that I can’t find much information on. And I she a version that purports to be the 1937 edition which does have the small slimy creature line.
The version you linked is a 2016 reprint, so I’m actually not sure which one is correct.
The version I linked to still has Gollum offering to give Bilbo the ring so it certainly predates the modern version I have. And that is the change Tolkien explicitly states he made.
The version I linked has this "If it asks us,
and we doesn't answer, we gives it a present, gollum!" Which I'm positive is only in the 1937 version. From what I can tell there were also minor corrections made before the 1951 changes, so I suppose it's possible that adding small slimy creature was one of those.
There are also reported to be dozens of different versions after 1951 caused by printers mixing and matching old and revised plates. I'm unsure exactly how that 1937 facsimile was recreated, or how the version I linked was created. One or both could have been taken from this mismatched versions.
I think the only way to be sure would be to buy a reprint from before 1951 or to find a scan of one online.
I see. This is a weird situation, then, and I apologize if I was abrasive.
Searching online ("Deep down here by the dark water lived old Gollum. I don't know") there are many hits for the line without "small and slimy creature." I assume it to be part of some legitimate edition, and I find it hard to believe this clarification would have been removed between editions, so with some confidence I conclude the original version did not have "small and slimy creature." Still, I understand your POV and appreciate your patience explaining it.
No worries. I wasn’t offended. Just surprised because I knew I had double checked.
Oh yeah I think it’s likely the very first version didn’t have it. But I’m much less sure about when it could have first popped up. I think it’s highly likely it showed up before the Swedish version. But I’m not very confident. Also it’s possible that the version Jansson was working from didn’t have it, even if a version of it with that text existed at the time.
The comment it's replying to stated that 1937 quote as if they had checked it. That deception seems ruder to me the language in the comment you're talking about. But I do agree the last sentence could've been omitted while getting the core point across (but we're all only human).
Agree that the post comes across as rude in tone, but it’s never explicitly disparaging. Might just be an overly direct tone (non-native English speaker, or maybe on the spectrum?)
Nah just sounds like people can't handle what they say being questioned as per usual. We should never take offense to being asked to clarify or explain when someone thinks we're wrong.
I'd only be vaguely offended if they had no grounded reason to think that I'm wrong (and they'd be calling me out for the sake of calling me out).
Communicating ideas is a part of tribalism too. Good brain chemicals when the tribe agrees and bad brain chemicals when they disagree.
Heya, I don't often come back and reply to people but I genuinely have to say I look up to your ability to change your mind, admit you were wrong and come out smiling.
> If there’s a character in a book who is known for wearing a red shirt, you might think it’s interesting to subvert expectations and give him a green shirt. But when the picture with the green shirt appears next to text describing a red shirt, it fails as an illustration. Especially in a book meant for children.
Having taught in schools for years? Treat companies that make addictive products the same way we treat drugs, alcohol and tobacco. Kids want them, particularly teenagers. We aren't perfect at stopping their access. But we can make a best attempt.
It would be hard, and it would be 'anti-capitalism', but, I think we have done real long term damage to a generation, and I think in 20 years, like Tobacco, it I'll turn out the companies knew how much they were damaging children and covered it up.
It's not anti-capitalism to not spend public money on nonsense that doesn't further the goals of education, no is it anti-capitalism to control the learning environment in schools. What we have is a collective action problem.
We are going to have to find new ways to correct for low-effort work.
I have a report that I made with AI on how customers leave our firm…The first pass looked great but was basically nonsense. After eight hours of iteration, the resulting report is better than I could’ve made on my own, by a lot. But it got there because I brought a lot of emotional energy to the AI party.
As workers, we need to develop instincts for “plausible but incomplete” and as managers we need to find filters that get rid of the low-effort crap.
The R2 was the first time I seriously thought about spending up on a vehicle.
It looks good.
But $45k++ is just wild to me. It seems like the market is undervaluing used EV’s, so hopefully the depreciation curve will bring these down to $30k in a couple years for us old-school folks who prefer not to have a $1000/mo car loan.
I'm a little confused why you think that's wild; It's pricing is inline with other BEV's in the Canadian market at least; it's comparing with the Model Y, the Equinox, the Blazer, the Mach e, the Ioniq 5, the EV6, the BZ4, and the Aryia.
Typically speaking you're going to spend $10,000 to $13,000 more then an equivalent gas car for a BEV vs a comparable gas car in Canada.
It’s just surprising to me that this is surprising to anyone in 2026. New cars are no longer $20-30k in the US and haven’t been since 2021. Average transaction price is now $50k+, so if companies like Rivian that skip the dealership model charge $45k, it really isn’t that expensive. The only new cars under $30k are sedans and hatchbacks. And most of them start at almost $27-30k for base price not including all the bs dealership fees.
> The only new cars under $30k are sedans and hatchbacks. And most of them start at almost $27-30k for base price not including all the bs dealership fees.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing to what I said or if this is meant as a counterpoint. But that’s kind of proving my point, new cars are pretty expensive these days. If you’re getting a base Nissan Leaf for $30k, SUVs costing $45k don’t sound that unreasonable.
The 45k is a myth for now. The vehicles that have been reviewed so far are going to be $60k+ performance models. We'll see if they actually get down to 45k.
From the analysis I've seen with that drag coefficient, the 45k vehicle is going to have to have a range of 220 to 260 miles. Hardly something that will fly off the shelves.
Average price of a new vehicle in the US is $50,000. This is priced appropriately considering total cost of ownership delta against a combustion vehicle. Rivian needs more volume for prices to decline from manufacturing efficiency at scale.
A cursory search of the web shows that TCO for EVs in the US is higher than ICE for all but high mileage commuters. Wish it wasn't the case, but insurance alone is a 30% premium.
Insurance is a bear for Teslas. They cost a lot to repair.
The Model 3 Highland is super fun to drive. Maybe other EVs have this too. It's a very different experience to a similarly priced ICE car, and worth factoring in to the value proposition.
I specify Highland because the previous version was rattly and noisy enough to seriously detract from the zippy driving experience. Highland is nice.
NYT recently did a fantastic calculator. It isn't simple flat one or the other is cheaper. It takes into account buy vs lease, milage, local energy cost, length of ownership etc
> While drafting the fact sheet, we checked two headline policy ideas that the One Big, Beautiful, Bill introduced: the early sunset of the consumer EV credit and a new $250 annual EV fee. While the annual fee was dropped from the final legislation, the $7,500 consumer credit now ends September 30th.
> For the Equinox EV, these changes would cut its seven-year savings over the gasoline Equinox from about $9,000 to under $200. The Model Y also showed savings compared to its gasoline comparison under that less favorable scenario for EVs.
That link also factors in fuel savings which depends on where you live. I'd personally never save on an EV if it costs more upfront.
How are insurers making any money insuring these things nowadays? 30% higher premiums are being mentioned elsewhere in the comments; that doesn't sound like enough!
>How are insurers making any money insuring these things nowadays?
Because insurance is fundamentally a "skim some" model.
They have a massive pool of money. Sure the pool is bleeding all the time because they're paying out, but it's also being replenished by premiums paid in. They invest this "constant" pool of money and the return on this covers overhead plus profit.
So when we're all getting screwed on our premiums because fenders cost tens of thousands and Karens file claims for parking scratches they're making more money, because the same ROI on a bigger pool of money is a bigger number.
People keep repeating this uncritically. There is a car-debt crisis, and wages haven't kept up with house/car costs.
We have one person saying "well in Californian wages..." and another saying essentially that 50K isn't a lot of money when the average SALARY is $66K/year.
I also believe this $50,000 stat is the mean car price which is likely to be pushed up by luxury car sales that cost 2-4x what a typical car costs, whereas a median price would give a better indication of what most people are actually spending. I did a quick Google search and wasn't able to find any data on median price, though.
$50000 stat is the mean transaction price, which includes the dealership stuff that gets added on. While it’s true that it is an average, companies are increasingly not making cheaper models. Sub $30k new cars are almost a myth at this point. You get sedans and hatchback models that start in the high 20s as the base price but we all know you’re not walking out of that dealership with a base model or just paying the advertised rate. SUVs on the other hand, which most people prefer these days are closer to $40k.
To what degree is this caused by car prices versus Americans' compulsion to keep buying new cars? Anecdotally, the folks I know struggling with car payments are almost exclusively in the latter bucket. But I'm open to having my mind changed with data.
Not entirely true; there are at least the lease, rental, and commercial fleet markets supplying predictable inventory of used cars to the public market.
I have 2014 Tesla S which which I recently had drive unit and battery replaced ($20k total). my friends all think I am nuts, but they all have $1k+ payments (some for 72m) while I haven’t had a car payment since 2017 and won’t have another one till 2036 :)
If your friends dumped $20K into paying off those loans they’d be a lot closer to paid off or maybe paid off completely, though. And that’s on a newer, lower mileage car.
I’m all for maintaining vehicles and keeping them on the road, but I don’t think you’re in a place to criticize your friends with $1K car payments after putting almost 2 years worth of those payments into a car that’s over a decade old.
I have spent exactly $0.00 on maintenance since 2014 when I bought the car (other than tires, 5G modem and internal battery). not sure what “paying for the car” means, it was paid off in 2017.
to simplify the math:
1. I spent total $90k
2. to have a car from 2014 through 2035-ish
for a $1k/month that would be $252k for my friends :)
nothing till 2035 and even then I might just replace the battery again. people look at EVs as like some disposable thing, when battery deteriorates you chuck it (shows in the pricing of 'used' EVs, my friend bought a 3-year old eTron that was originally purchased for $93k for $35k - 19k miles on it). my tesla is rock n roll now and will be good for the next decade
I wonder how much of this ridiculous car money was previously buy-a-house money. If you don't think you'll ever buy a house, you might as well spend it on a car.
Small, efficient gasoline vehicles are prohibited by CAFE standards in the US, but EVs are exempt. Generally new EV manufacturers have been starting with high-end vehicles, and working their way into mid-range, with hopes on eventual low-range vehicles.
Because EVs are exempt from CAFE standards, it does open up a niche at the very low end, and Slate and Telo are starting up production in that market, so one of their vehicles might appeal to you.
ya same, i can't see spending as much as i did on my first tesla 5+ years ago, the depreciations just too steep, hopefully that holds for rivian too and i'll pick one up in a couple years the R2 is really nice.
That said, china BEV's are 1/2 the cost even accounting for import costs to the USA lol so sort of points toward a issue with US companies at the moment
Most people in California don’t have PG&E. Most of the land area in the northern 2/3 of the State or so is covered by PG&E, but people and land area aren't the same thing. Southern California Edison alone serves almost as many people as PG&E, and other smaller utilities, including public utilities like LADWP, SMUD, Silicon Valley Power, etc., serve another big chunk of the population.
SCE will screw you nearly as hard. We are on a tiered usage which is the cheapest they offer and it's $0.32/kWh and even at that rate the EV isn't much cheaper than the non-hybrid I replaced. I'd need to switch to a ToU plan which would increase my other electricity costs.
Also for depreciation:
2020 Mazda 3 - sold $18k at dealer, originally $28k, 64% retained
2022 Kia EV6 - bought $25k, originally $55k-$7.5k federal, 53% retained
Participation in sports betting appears to make people about 2x more likely to be delinquent on their loans.
Whether you think that’s “bad enough” is another question, but the article doesn’t make it very clear what the effect size is.
reply