Yes. A good quality pair of "goodyear welted" (the traditional construction style that allows the soles to be replaced) boots or shoes, well maintained and resoled as needed can actually be less expensive over the long term as well as more comfortable and stylish compared to midpriced fast-fashion disposable footwear.
I suspect for most of them it's not even about how much money they have so much as it is about optimising the rate of growth of their wealth. IE, they don't care so much about the total amount they have so much as the amount they have coming in.
Right ear went to working in a call centre. Left ear seems to be trying to decide if it's going to recover or not from some unaware idiot in Tesco suddenly walking up and slamming his stock cart shut right next to me. I really hope I don't end up with stereo EEEEEEEEEEEEE but it feels like an inevitable matter of time at this point. There goes the left one again....
Here's an example that popped up in a feed for me just now. An article from a reputable British newspaper about an American organisation (that isn't mismanaged by a self-aggrandizing, lunatic, grifter) successfully implanting chips into a the brain of a man who was paralyzed from the chest down to restore movement and sensation to his limbs.
I've not yet seen any indication as to what exactly they have approval to test. My guess is it's literally just something like testing an electrode gel that goes on your skin as part of the process or at most the external parts that interface with the implant. There's an endless world of things the FDA could have given them approval to test as part of their project that doesn't involve actually cracking anyone's skull open and jamming stuff in there to watch them die like the monkeys did. After you get the approval to test your application sponge on real human subject, you launch a press release stating "Neuralink gets FDA approval to move to human testing!" and await that sweet delivious investor money.
Brain computer interfaces are an exciting field for helping people with health issues that we currently cannot help with. Nueralink aren't the only business working on them though so if, as seems very likely, they are overhyped and ineffective as a way to chase a good market value for another of Elon Musk's ventures, there will still be other organisations that do better work.
I definitely lean this way too, though I've become better able to step away from that mindset in games I want to enjoy without it.
I think part of what has helped for me is, having an awareness of that tendency, I now try to actively feed or restrict it.
IE, I play a lot of games where that is the intended fun experience. Stuff like Magnum Opus (or any Zachtronic's title), Slay the Spire (or other roguelikes), Overwatch (or other competitive games) are all designed from the ground up for the fun to be in playing the game at the highest level of execution possible (some more mechanically others more intellectually.) I try to make sure I'm playing something like that if I feel like I'm at all likely to want to scratch that optimisation itch with that gaming session.
Otherwise, when playing games where that isn't really the point, I find it easier to engage with the intended experience knowing that if I want to do the optimisation thing I could switch to something that is much more satisfying for that, but I also try to optimise how well I do the thing the game wants. If it's a roleplaying game, I might try to challenge myself to most perfectly do as the character would actually do, rather than what I might do, or what the mechanics of the game might incentivise me to do. Often that can actually lead to more challenging gameplay too as you are restricting yourself to making the less mechanically optimal choices because you've challenged yourself to only do so where it aligns with the character.
It certainly does pose an issue from that perspective but I'm not sure any more than websites in general. It's not actually that hard to rip off a website's design and so it's quite common to see phishing scams of that nature. In some sense it's less likely to happen with people impersonating a Lemmy instance simply because actually setting up and running one is more work than impersonating just a regular website.
Yes, someone could create an instance called "officiallemmyinstancedotcom" and pretend to be the one single official lemmy to try to trap people searching for Lemmy not entirely knowing what it is, but I don't think the fact that people already think places like lemmy.ml or lemmy.world are synonymous with Lemmy is a prerequisite for someone doing that. If anything, people who mistakenly think one of those two is the only "real" Lemmy are probably less likely to be taken in by a malicious one.
Still...
Providing clearer on site messaging to help avoid this sort of confusion sounds like something a good UX designer could perhaps assist the Lemmy FOSS project with?
One of the more important skills of good game design is to understand that whenever your players are complaining about something, there is something wrong that you need to identify and address whilst also recognising that it's rarely the thing the players think is what's wrong (as they just see the negative end result) and that they tend to express those complaints as demands for the solution they think is best to what they think the problem is.
In this case players are yelling at Blizzard "There's not enough content!" when in fact, as you've observed, there actually is plenty of content, it's just (seemingly, I've not actually played it myself to say for sure first hand) that Blizzard made it too easy to optimise your way past all of that content as a minor inconvenience on your way to, uh, nothing.
The answer to the problem is twofold. One you need to plug those holes in your balance so players are no longer incentivised to optimise their way past actually playing and enjoying your game (now I talk about it I think I vaguely remember reading an article that Blizzard are doing exactly that and having a hard time cleanly pitching the benefits of it to the player-base, which is why you also need to.) Two, try to put the horse back into the stable by now, sadly, actually having to create the end game content that players have bursted their way through to because your game design unintentionally promised it would be there (or just write those players off as a lost cause. Which seems like a dreadful idea as they are the ones who were the most passionate early buyers of your product...)
Alternatively... If they'd caught these issues before release (which is often, though not always, a matter of giving the developers and designers the resources to do so) they could simply have caught those issues of optimal builds being too powerful for the content and adjusted either or both to be a better match and ended up with a title that players liked more than they will like the harder to make version Blizzard now needs to turn Diablo 4 into (not to mention, that the work they need to do to introduce worthwhile end-game content could have just gone to a paid expansion for their more well regarded release instead.)
But then the Bobby Kotick's of the world are boastfully proud of their complete inability/unwillingness to think about the development of their games in that way so here we are...
I think something like "taps elbow" would be funnier.