4 ms·
that seems like a silly way to think about it. OP wanted a thing. in the past, they've been OK paying $10k for similar things. now they're paying $200/month
by bananapub 1y ago
that seems like a silly way to think about it.
OP wanted a thing. in the past, they've been OK paying $10k for similar things. now they're paying $200/month + a bunch of their time wrangling it and they're also OK with that.
seems reasonable to consider that "$10k of value" in very rough terms which is of course how all value is measured.
- lelanthran 1y ago> OP wanted a thing. in the past, they've been OK paying $10k for similar things. Okay, then their costs should have come down similarly, no? OP said they were a business and that these weren't luxury hobby things but business needs. In which case, it must reflect on the bottom line. I operate as a business myself (self-employed), and I can generally correlate purchases with the bottom line almost immediately for some things (Jetbrains, VPSes for self-hosted git, etc) and correlate it with other things in the near future (certifications, conferences, etc). The idea that "here is something I recently started paying a non-trivial amount for but it does not reflect on the bottom line" is a new and alien concept to me.
- arolihas 1y agoWhen people made studio ghibli versions of themselves for free, were they creating hundreds of dollars worth of value since that's how much it would've cost a freelancer to commission such a picture? I would say rather the value of the pictures themselves became very cheap.