My hunch is that when it comes to the public's perception of how water is used, it's easy to think water = food. We all instinctively know that plants need water to grow and can't live without it. And we can't live without food.
Data? Not as essential.
However, for those of us who pay attention, we know there is an extreme amount of wastefulness when it comes to how water gets used for agriculture, that is completely unnecessary. (Think growing alfalfa in Arizona, or spray irrigation in hot climates, or or or - the examples are sadly endless.
Hopefully this becomes a good opportunity for us to better pay attention and regulate how water is used in many different instances.
You will never start over and rationalize water like that for ag. And it's an easy and popular target for lots of people who are disconnected to it. Residential use is where the waste is.
Both can be true, but if you subject water pricing to market forces the problem can help correct itself. That won't happen for ag pricing (strong lobby) but would get rid of the relatively minuscule residential wastefulness.
Why should society let market forces decide how we treat a resource necessary for human life? I would rather trust a democratic society more than I'd ever trust any of these anti-humans that currently lead big tech. These people have shown the open disdain they have towards humanity, we are under no obligation to give them whatever they want if they just pay for it. Money is not the issue for them, they do not like being told no.
Society should, and is, openly reject such disdain and contempt toward humanity.
That's incredibly solvable: subsidize every household with a baseline of essential water, and charge above-market rates for everything else. Set the higher tier's price to fund an annual dividend for every citizen to offset the average food cost difference. Waste would go way down, and practices would shift to water-efficient practices.
I believe this makes a lot of sense. Hopefully we also have a smart meter one could use to get quick feedback on water use, so homeowners can see how changing their behavior reduces water use in the same way that a smart meter for electricity gives us the same feedback for reducing energy use.
Even without the economic incentive, I've turned off the lawn irrigation installed by previous owners, use soaker or drip irrigation in my berry and vegetable gardens, and water ornamental plants only when they're really in distress during our summertime droughts. It's amazing how soil can go from moist and wonderful in the spring to desiccated powder in a summer drought.
Coming soon, we'll be replacing the front yards with creeping thyme and maybe wild strawberries. I do need to see if wild strawberries, though, are a groundhog buffet. I hate those little fuckers.
I'm specifically talking about local elected governments managing a municipal resource that needs to respond to market supply and demand realities over the course of time where availability of said resource fluctuates. These municipalities are run by democratically elected representatives that should be acting in the best interests of their constituents -- and if not they can be replaced.
Almost. In a zero-sum world, where "Big" and "Tech" only combine into "evil", any use of a resource by big tech is intolerable. You can't get there from water use statistics, you have to assume zero sum, and you have to assume improper use.
Full-stack marketing generalist looking an early-stage opportunity. Interested in orgs looking to make a meaningful and measurable impact in the lives of others.
Location: SF Bay Area
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: Less relevant, when it comes to marketing platforms, I have used most everything and learn new platforms quickly. Extensive B2B and D2C experience. Took companies from $5M to $40M ARR and $30M to $110M ARR.
Résumé/CV: https://maxwellsindell.com/Maxwell-Sindell-Resume.pdf
Email: [email protected]
All of the notes regarding the degraded quality and customer support / experience for products and services is true. But the additional factor is that so many of us are pushed to the brink now, in terms of affordability and costs of goods and services. If you're making good money and you order a sub-par product, it's definitely a frustration, but it's not the end of the world. But now, for so many, there is less margin for that kind of error.
That scammy product, pushed to us by an algorithm we can't control or escape, sold with lies and guarantees that will never be enforced, with deceptive ads generated by AI that becomes increasingly undistinguishable from the real thing, and flooded with positive reviews generated by bots, is money that won't go to essential things like food, rent, and transport, let alone healthcare, all of which is also increasingly unaffordable. The rage is understandable.
Yes, when the budget is tight and the washing machine you got just two years ago has a major breakage (just outside the warranty period), the cost of fixing it or getting a new one become pretty close. Couple that with the fact that the washer you replaced it with worked fine for 30 years before it broke and I think the anger is very rightly justified.
The sad part is that Speed Queen, while absolutely worth it, costs 2-3x the price of the average pile of junk sold in [Home Depot, Lowes, etc]. Buy once, cry once and a legit example of the boots theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
To add to this, I think that spending more money these days helps a lot less.
Higher prices these days mean more features, but not necessarily higher quality.
Everything is a subscription, can only be controlled by their app, and is mass-produced in a factory in China, brought here and then sold with a story plus a huge markup.
A less connected example:
You want to buy a new couch. Budget: $2k. You get:
* bad construction, it'll creak
* badly joined, so the pieces will come loose
* barely springs under the cusions
* non-removeable cushions
* foam that collapses in 2 years
But even spending $6k isn't gonna mitigate all of those issues above. You're probably closer to $10k.
And then if you want a recliner, finding one with removeable cushions is nearly impossible. So far I found 1 brand that does it. ONE.
You lost us after "Canada." I have zero doubt things like furniture and clothing are going to be superior if made in Canada than the U.S. or China. I checked your link and there are no stores in the U.S. (or their zip code search doesn't work).
Natuzzi (an Italian brand) has its "Editions" line that's cheaper because it's made in China. From my experience, the quality is good.
Also, brands like CB2 and Crate & Barrel are American and popular in Canada - especially CB2 because of its good designs and quality at cheaper prices (which are even cheaper in the US).
I never said Canadian-made furniture is inherently superior. My point was simply that the blanket statement that you can't buy a decent couch for around $2k isn't universally true. I bought one in that price range that's solid wood and well-built. It even has removable cushions.
I always wondered how my coworkers in tech (imply to) spent so much money (even without kids) and then I hear things like "you can't buy a car for less than 50k these days" or read these posts. Then you test drive a 20k used car and the only thing that is more than 10% worse about it about it is how quickly your ego goes 0 to 60 :) A good couch costs around 1k and I'm pretty sure based on extensive experience the $200 IKEA couches are quite decent.
How often do you need to replace foam? Our 10 years + 2 moves old couch (that cost iirc $700-800 then) is basically good as new. I guess we don't have kids or dogs, the worst thing that happened to it is a gerbil briefly finding a way into the hollows :)
Removable cushions in a couch are pretty rare.
As a counter example, both of my couches still have perfect cushions. One bought for C$800 15 years ago and another for C$1500 5 years ago.
I read comments like this, they’re all written in broad language I assume to people already nodding in agreement.
The world today is not perfect: the smartphone and social media have rapidly and I think negatively changed society, empowering fringey issues, elevatiing the angriest personalities and inflaming passions. But materially, apart from housing and healthcare (which is hardly the greatest present concern of most people short of middle age), *we live in an age of wonders*.
To your complaint about bot reviews and product quality, it has never been easier to return unsatisfactory products through Amazon. And thanks to its massive market power, the seller eats a lot of the cost of that return. As for longevity, I just don’t see it. I buy a lot of cheap little Chinese tools and supplies from AliExpress (which does not have Amazon’s generous return policy), and I’ve never been disappointed.
Healthcare is expensive because it doesn’t scale, and Americans use a lot of it and demand that it be the absolute best. 92% of Americans have health insurance, ~55% through work.
I’m sure you’re aware of these facts, but boring realities would diffuse the angry attention you enjoy. Well, enjoy it!
No one ever cared, at least in the U.S. about 'food rent healthcare transport'. In the U.S. we don't combine those ideas together. Unless you're a student or a politician, almost no one talks like that.
You and I know it's connected in a sense.
But is it meaningfully connected? It plays into a story about corporate hegemony, money influencing politicians through lobbying, the power of health care conglomerates and large corporations.
But it doesn't have any teeth to the average person, who's talking about inflation, or they're talking about gas, or they're talking about taxes, or they're talking about health care bills. I never hear a unified narrative. Should I be? Is it helpful? Socialist narratives have a bad reputation, and our current socialist politicians talk a LOT about what happens overseas, or immigration, or matters of race and gender. I am talking about the U.S. socialists, here.
> No one ever cared, at least in the U.S. about 'food rent healthcare transport'. In the U.S. we don't combine those ideas together. Unless you're a student or a politician, almost no one talks like that.
GP said "essential things like food, rent, and transport, let alone healthcare".
I think you're right that we rarely phrase it like 'food rent healthcare transport', but "average people" certainly talk about spending so much on essentials that there's nothing left for fun, or being unable to afford the essentials.
Data? Not as essential.
However, for those of us who pay attention, we know there is an extreme amount of wastefulness when it comes to how water gets used for agriculture, that is completely unnecessary. (Think growing alfalfa in Arizona, or spray irrigation in hot climates, or or or - the examples are sadly endless.
Hopefully this becomes a good opportunity for us to better pay attention and regulate how water is used in many different instances.
reply