What are your "poor person" money life hacks?
_danny @ _danny @lemmy.world Posts 1Comments 151Joined 2 yr. ago
_danny @ _danny @lemmy.world
Posts
1
Comments
151
Joined
2 yr. ago
I think they get around this by having the pharmacy hours be a few hours offset from their actual business hours. My local Sam's opens at 8 for "plus" memberships and the pharmacy doesn't open until 10 when the poor normal members can start shopping.
Toss your incandescent and fluorescent lights. Get LED bulbs (not smart lights, just white LEDs). Where applicable, install timer switches.
It's crazy how efficient LEDs are. They are a little bit more expensive but you'll save it on your energy bill over time and you'll have to replace them less.
People also don't realize how much of their energy bill is heat & air conditioning. If you don't have pets, turn your heat off or way down while you're at work. Just make sure it stays above freezing and above the dewpoint. If you can get any smart thermostat for cheap, they'll save you a ton of money over the long run if you're like me and constantly forget to set the temperature before you leave for work.
Also, thick drapes work wonders at keeping the cold out of cheap windows. You can get them and the hardware to hang them pretty cheap from goodwill. You can also wrap them in Saran wrap if you really want to keep the cold out. They sell kits, but painters tape and a cling film are way cheaper if you can hide them behind some drapes.
If you have a Sam's or Costco in your area, you can get past the membership by using a gift card. You can also buy a gift card without a membership. Sometimes they're sticklers about it if you're there super early, because that's apparently "special members hour" or some shit, but the worst that happens is they tell you to leave.
If you can save up $15-20 for a 25lb sack of rice, it'll last about 100-150 meals, which means it's about 10-20¢ per meal. Just keep it in a plastic container to keep bugs out.
Get some cheap frozen vegetables and bulk, dried beans and you can eat pretty good for like a dollar per day.
Honestly it's kinda cruel that buying in bulk saves a ton of money, but the people that need it most can't afford to.
Not op, but it's not bad but it's definitely not a part of the main three books. You kinda have to consider it like the "jax and the broken house" story. Narrow Road is a bit longer than that story, but it's an order of magnitude less than either of the two 'main' books.
If you like his writing and you're hungry for more of his work, it's a good way to scratch that itch... But it functioned like an appetizer for me, I was sated for a bit but I can tell I'm going to end up even hungrier for the next proper book than I was before.
My understanding is that the more removed you are from the "top" of the government pyramid, the less you are affected by disruptions of that position. Largely when a new face or party takes over (by force or otherwise) very seldom do they want to rebuild everything from the ground up and will keep most of the bipartisan offices untouched.
If a very violent coup is successful and they're planning punishments for all "government officials" the postman in a rural village is going to be pretty low on that list.
Gotta say, I agree with your main point... But that is kinda the thing people point at when saying the government is inefficient. The large parts of the US infrastructure is decades past it's expected lifespan, and the US government is not allocating enough funds to fix it quickly enough.
It's irrelevant if it's in the terms or not if Sony knows for a fact that most people will not check the terms. It doesn't matter if people should read the terms, it doesn't matter how the terms are specified. That information is buried in a 10,000 word contract no one is going to read (the PSN Store terms and conditions is actually about 10,000 words, over an hour to read)
Customers could "buy" a product with the understanding that they owned the product in perpetuity. Sony then removed the product from the customer after the purchase without providing a refund.
You're not even trying to understand the opposing view, so I'm kinda done with this conversation.
The fact that it's video or a game is irrelevant to the argument, but I have amended my comment.
Second, I specifically said how they "understand the terms" because like .01% of customers read the terms and conditions before buying, even for super large purchases like cars and houses most people don't read the entire contract. It's a flaw in the legal system that allows companies to hide shady practices like what Sony is doing and force customers to just take it. Even if you read it, you'd need a law degree to properly understand what the document is conveying.
Most people understand the process of buying media as "I give you money, you give me content" not "I give you money, you give me a license to watch the content" it's not explicit about the lack of ownership. If someone asked you "what movies do you own, hopefully you're not going to be a smart ass and say "technically production studios are the only ones who own movies anymore"
You're still jumping the moral argument and going straight to the legal one. I'm not arguing the legal one because it's clear that privacy is not legal (by definition)
However if you sell someone a movie and hide a clever contract (that you know for a fact the customer will not read) in the deal so that you can invalidate the content at any time you feel like it, Don't expect me to cry you a river when your customer bypasses your asinine contract by making a local copy for personal use.
If the terms are not explicitly explained in understandable language, then morally terms are non-existent and the deal should be revoked with both parties receiving their property back.
They should either be required to refund those purchases or they shouldn’t be allowed to remove them.
No disagreement there, but we live in a world where they absolutely can and will do this stuff and get away with it with no consequences. Until either of those two options you propose are reached, I see no moral issue with pirating a game content you paid for and can no longer play.
I'm not talking about the morality of a person who was already pirating it before, or pirate games videos not affected by this issue. Just a case where a person bought a game content from Sony, who then removed their purchase without compensation due to reasons beyond the terms and conditions the customer expected.
I would imagine them being chunks of sulfur, which could probably be used dyes, explosives, or fertilizer. So they could be quite valuable.
It kinda does add some validity to the argument. The seller can just take away a product without compensating you for it, in most situations we call that theft. If they are going to steal the content from you, morally I see no problem stealing it back.
It's of course still illegal, but I wouldn't say it's immoral in this situation.
The best thing you can do is bill by the hour, give a quote and get half of your quote up front. It works for pretty much anywhere customers suddenly disappear after the job is started.
Why J&J? I can understand the others on your list.
If I could ditch them I would. I can't fathom why people haven't been in a constant state of outrage for them putting ads in Windows.
This doesn't seem like a problem with public transportation, but a problem with your law enforcement.
I also eat at Chick-fil-A occasionally, but it's mainly because there are so few places I actually like the food. I do feel bad each time because I know the profit from my meal is going to fund some pretty awful lobbyists. It's not just giving money to a bigot, it's giving money to a bigot who is very active in politics.
It's increasingly hard to avoid that though. It seems like every single owner of each company in the fortune 500 is actively trying to drag us back into feudalism.
If you complain enough, adobe will let you cancel for free. But they are also on my blacklist, for making me work to cancel a service for free. Absolutely ridiculous.
Excluding variable energy pricing, it's much more energy efficient to only heat and cool your home while you're actually at home.
Think of it like a tea kettle. It's definitely not energy efficient to keep the water boiling for the hours when you're not home just because you might want a cuppa when you get home. The only benefit keeping the water hot is to brew your next cup quicker. The water is cooling off at the same rate it would if the heater was off, but energy is being pumped into it to keep it hot and therefore it is constantly losing energy.
This is also assuming your HVAC's coefficient of performance is constant, which it's not, but it still generally is way better to avoid heating and cooling while you're away from home, especially if you live in an older less insulated home.
If you do have variable energy pricing, that can change things, and that's when a smart thermostat can really save you money. Instead of heating and cooling around your schedule, you do it around the pricing treating your house like a battery. See: https://youtu.be/0f9GpMWdvWI?si=LjiAjNf6t8cU8OZ2
This video really only really works if your home is relatively well insulated (as he points out). If it's not well insulated, you'll be uncomfortable basically all the time.
Generally if you're on a variable rate it's better to set the thermostat closer to the outside temperature when you're gone for more than 5 hours. If you're not on a variable rate, that break even point is like 30 minutes.