3 ms·

Well that is only if you look at software/ops as a 100% commercial undertaking. It is not. One way to understand why people self-host is to understand why peop

by shaan7 6y ago

Well that is only if you look at software/ops as a 100% commercial undertaking. It is not. One way to understand why people self-host is to understand why people self-cook their food. It takes significantly longer to prepare food (get raw material, cut, cook) than ordering it. People still do it for $reasons - some find it fun, some find it cheaper, some find it nice to be able to control the taste, some find it more healthy to know whats going on their plate, and so on. Only concentrating on the dollar cost is too narrow a view, IMO.

Chris2048 6y ago
Far fewer people cook their own food for fun versus preparation time not being the only constraint: cost, availability, health, transparency (of prep & ingredients), dependency etc It's common for people to delude themselves into thinking they haven't wasted their time by convincing themselves they did it for fun (or the lols, or whatever) - I'd say the difference is whether they knew )or stated) this upfront, or only after they failed, or had a better solution pointed out to them. 2nd most common also: at least I learnt something / gained xp - which is fair enough, if true. > Only concentrating on the dollar cost is too narrow a view Not if you convey other resources/constraints in dollars. Just attach a dollar-value to your free time, perhaps with discounts for things with side-benefits.
- shaan7 6y ago
  Fair enough, by "far fewer" you basically mean the same thing I meant by "some". The point was not to have an exhaustive list of the exact reasons behind people cooking. > It's common for people to delude themselves into thinking they haven't wasted their time by convincing themselves they did it for fun I am probably missing some context here because this does not make sense to me. Something is fun because its fun, what does it even mean for someone to forcibly convince themselves of something that is otherwise? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > Just attach a dollar-value to your free time I do that when someone asks me to do a project for them in my free time, so I can know what to charge them. But there is little value in assigning a dollar-value for time that I am going to spend doing something that _I want to do_ . Its like watching a movie, or making a sand-castle in the backyard. I won't enjoy it if I keep thinking "Damn, I just watched a movie for 3 hours, there goes $300 worth of time."
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    I mean the minority, which I'm not sure "some" implies. The factors you describe: cheaper, control, health can be seen as the same as cost. More expensive places might taste better, be healthier etc. While I'm sure a lot of people enjoy cooking, I'm not sure many would recreationally cook as often as they need food. > context You can have fun imagining the payoffs, only to find they do not appear. Have you ever seen a movie and been disappointed, or played a game and found it lacking. "fun" is not an absolute measure, and review doesn't necessarily capture how fun something is versus how fun you think it ought to be - plenty people give things higher value than their "fun" value, despite claiming to only have done it for fun - the missing value is ideological. > there is little value in assigning a dollar-value for time that I am going to spend doing something that _I want to do_ Only if there is, some some reason, literally only one thing you want to do. But if there are competing things you might like to do then comparing them makes sense. One way or another, if you choose to watch a movie, or build a sandcastle, you are comparing the two to decide which. Using monetary values is just a more formal way of doing that for larger, less impulsive, projects.
reaperducer 6y ago
Well that is only if you look at software/ops as a 100% commercial undertaking. It is not. Your time is only free if it is worth nothing. My time is very valuable. I happily pay other people and companies to do things for me because I'd rather have the time. I think it's just a normal part of life. When you're young, you have more time than money. When you're old, you have more money than time.

by shaan7 6y ago

Chris2048 6y ago

Far fewer people cook their own food for fun versus preparation time not being the only constraint: cost, availability, health, transparency (of prep & ingredients), dependency etc It's common for people to delude themselves into thinking they haven't wasted their time by convincing themselves they did it for fun (or the lols, or whatever) - I'd say the difference is whether they knew )or stated) this upfront, or only after they failed, or had a better solution pointed out to them. 2nd most common also: at least I learnt something / gained xp - which is fair enough, if true. > Only concentrating on the dollar cost is too narrow a view Not if you convey other resources/constraints in dollars. Just attach a dollar-value to your free time, perhaps with discounts for things with side-benefits.

shaan7 6y ago
Fair enough, by "far fewer" you basically mean the same thing I meant by "some". The point was not to have an exhaustive list of the exact reasons behind people cooking. > It's common for people to delude themselves into thinking they haven't wasted their time by convincing themselves they did it for fun I am probably missing some context here because this does not make sense to me. Something is fun because its fun, what does it even mean for someone to forcibly convince themselves of something that is otherwise? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > Just attach a dollar-value to your free time I do that when someone asks me to do a project for them in my free time, so I can know what to charge them. But there is little value in assigning a dollar-value for time that I am going to spend doing something that _I want to do_ . Its like watching a movie, or making a sand-castle in the backyard. I won't enjoy it if I keep thinking "Damn, I just watched a movie for 3 hours, there goes $300 worth of time."
- Chris2048 6y ago
  I mean the minority, which I'm not sure "some" implies. The factors you describe: cheaper, control, health can be seen as the same as cost. More expensive places might taste better, be healthier etc. While I'm sure a lot of people enjoy cooking, I'm not sure many would recreationally cook as often as they need food. > context You can have fun imagining the payoffs, only to find they do not appear. Have you ever seen a movie and been disappointed, or played a game and found it lacking. "fun" is not an absolute measure, and review doesn't necessarily capture how fun something is versus how fun you think it ought to be - plenty people give things higher value than their "fun" value, despite claiming to only have done it for fun - the missing value is ideological. > there is little value in assigning a dollar-value for time that I am going to spend doing something that _I want to do_ Only if there is, some some reason, literally only one thing you want to do. But if there are competing things you might like to do then comparing them makes sense. One way or another, if you choose to watch a movie, or build a sandcastle, you are comparing the two to decide which. Using monetary values is just a more formal way of doing that for larger, less impulsive, projects.

reaperducer 6y ago

Well that is only if you look at software/ops as a 100% commercial undertaking. It is not. Your time is only free if it is worth nothing. My time is very valuable. I happily pay other people and companies to do things for me because I'd rather have the time. I think it's just a normal part of life. When you're young, you have more time than money. When you're old, you have more money than time.