Quite tangential, but I always giggle at this version of time-is-money "I have already put 6+ hours into researching this idea; I would probably pay at least $4

Quite tangential, but I always giggle at this version of time-is-money "I have already put 6+ hours into researching this idea; I would probably pay at least $400 to get that time back." I understand the reasoning behind adopting such frames, but for me, this way of thinking wouldn't work at all. At best, it'd be my new procrastination shiney. I find a lot of benefit, and also quite enjoy, quantifying like this at a bigger scale, but micro-rationalising such as this totally doesn't suit my brain. I wonder if it's me or him in the minority? The "therefore" following from the time-is-money logic (he would pay > $1000 for this product) seems like a pretty alien disconnect for me. My back of envelope would probably be "most people pay between $x-$y for lighting and/or other decor stuff, therefore..." s I don't disagree on his conclusion (maybe $400-$1200 price point), which makes me wonder if either of us are really arriving at our conclusions in the way we think we are, or just retconning our reasoning using random ideas floating around our minds uselessly. In any case, I think the overall idea is good and the timing is good. For a start, it's a fairly DIY-ish on the interior design front thing regardless of available products because you can't use 20000 lumen lights the way you would a 200 lumen light.