chickenlittle53 t1_j9vtjng wrote

Are you buying to keep a car long term nor no? For me, a car is legit just transportation. I can careless about the fancy shit and if saving money was the goal, then I wouldn't be buying a car known to be way more expensive than neccesary like a 4runner. Soon many cheaper cars out there that can get you wherever for cheaper just as nicely.

That's not a judgment on you personally, but just pointing out that ify our goal is to save money then you have to also consider what kind of car you're buying to begin with. There is no blanket answer per se. Trading in though is a guranteed money loser 99% of the time though when you're talking every few years especially.

I guess what I'm trying to day is, you're talking about being concerned about money while buying a more expensive car than is likely needed, considering constantly trading one in, and not keeping it until you actually need another car. All things that are the opposite of being concerned about maximizing money. Decide whether you're buying to save or buying to just buy again every few years. If the latter lease I guess(?). If the former think about cheaper cars that get the job done just fine and keep until the wheels fall off.

Had mine for the last 7 years and don't plan on selling any time soon. Was cheap and gets the job done.


chickenlittle53 t1_j756bej wrote

Let me also phrase it a different way, for those that are interested in any of this to begin with do you not think they wouldn't want the best chance of survival in caw of emergencies? If this matters to folks then they want the best and can make sense to then get the best instead. Simple really.


chickenlittle53 t1_j73sbwt wrote

1 device that is far superior in saving lives > less superior device.

When it comes to saving lives no one cares you brought some super lightweight device with you that won't effect you at all in movement or cause discomfort really. We just care about being able to save pur lives as effectively as possible. No such thong as being ready for everything, but having even better devices to prepare you makes it much more effective and can save even more lives.


chickenlittle53 t1_j72pcm6 wrote

Not really. If your goal is saving your life wearing a watch on your wrist weighing next to nothing isn't a big deal. In fact, tons of devices weigh next to nothing and can easily just be in a bag. If the purpose is to actually save your life using better equipment trumps whatever you think isn't "worth it" if you value your life above all. Also saves folks a shit ton of money in the process.


chickenlittle53 t1_j72ouki wrote

They plan emergency responses all the time. Entire jobs are literally designed specifically for it. No one should be doing dangerous shit without planning on what to do during emergencies. There is a huge market surrounded around emergencies for a reason with devices specifically for for a reason. Smart/prudent people do plan for emergencies.


chickenlittle53 t1_j72o6cy wrote

This is nothing new and there are better devices for the actual price of subscription that yes apple will be charging folks and less reliable than these better options that a fraction of the cost if a phone withba shit to better reliability if you're worried about your actual life.

This just isn't some mind blowing deal. They are literally just using someone else's service that has existed for quite some time, but in a less reliable fashion. You can already use similar services like Garmin and use your phone for more in depth features.

I don't really care what phone you choose, but it's weird folks think this is some new technology that apple came up with. It's a okay nice to have if you're already getting a new iPhone, but is pretty silly to buy a new phone for in most cases when better more accurate and depth tech already exists that saves your life much more reliably and cheaper exists. Especially, with alternatives being more polished and tested.


chickenlittle53 t1_j72m8as wrote

First of all, it isn't even hundreds of dollars a year dude. Learn to look stuff up before commenting. Second, Apple will charge for the service and it will end up costing you a shit ton more to buy a close to $1000 phone in many scenarios on top of eventually having to pay around the exact same amount for Apple's subscription service.

You seem to think apple is forever free for this? My lord, be careful criticizing apple folks. Fanboys in full swing right now. Hate to break it to folks, but apple did nothing new technologically. People have been doing thus stuff for years. It's not even worth buying a new phone for tons of folks. Tons more won't even likely use at all. Them are the actual brakes. Calm the fanboyism down a notch It's okay.


chickenlittle53 t1_j72ksxe wrote

The majority of the population probably won't care at all. That said, apparently they have an app already you can use your phone for anyhow.

I just don't think most of the population cares enough to use satellite (that you have to pay extra for either typically anyhow) with how infrequent they would likely need to use it overall. I personally wouldn't play for a whole new phone for it and I actually hike and shit. I just don't do wild shit aline amdet folks know ahead of time.

Edit: Plus, if I have to pay anyway, Garmin is likely much better of a piece of equipment to use anyhow than iPhone. I'll end up with much better service with a better device meant for it.


chickenlittle53 t1_j4t6iva wrote

Guess it depends on what you mean by "high end" as people have different use cases for a PC and what one may consider "high end" won't do much for another's use case.

Second, of we're talking most people, you earnestly paid waay more for things that won't benefit them at all. There is simply no benefit to most people having 64GB of RAM period let alone DDR5 that still does not do much at their CL rate to really justify a vast difference in price for most. So paying top end for the same benefits overall is silly in most cases anyhow.

I bring that up to point out a few fallacies in your claim if you're talking about spending more money meaning "high end." I also find it odd that you don't categorize high performance with high end when those are hand and hand. Almost no one's definition of high end is going to include low performance and consider it "high end." That wouldn't even make sense.

You brought up PC which can be customized to meet exactly what you need and want and much cheaper therefore bringing a ton of value period. No one is saying Mac is horrible, but the moment you start bringing price into this and comparing apples to apples spec wise PC can wn out there due to the nature of being able forever upgrade and find plenty if sales in the process. Mac is much more closed off. If you're buying Mac in this case, it tends to be for niche reasons. Bathing wring with it, but just came across as if you were trying to bring price into this and bringing up specs as if you have to spend $1700 to get a very nice PC that is high end still. With the plethora of options out there thst simply isn't true.


chickenlittle53 t1_j4si03q wrote

Most folks do not need 64GB of RAM and most claiming tend to not need to either. RAM has gotten a ton cheaper even DDR5 and most don't need more than 16GB for what they do and won't even use much more. Same for CPU. Can go longer as most people just game as their most intensive task. You don't tend to need 1000W either.

So basically, you can build much cheaper than $1700 and definitely hit a higher quality build. Especially when you're comparing it to apple which typically has just flat out dumb prices for basic spec upgrades. Windows is gonna be cheaper 99% of the time.


chickenlittle53 t1_izmwct2 wrote

I'm with you. OP must go to weird events or hang out with odd people. No event I've ever gone to had this issue if it wasn't a wedding or birthday party for obvious reasons. The food is obviously there to be eaten and folks are already cutting into dishes ao it makes no logical sense to be scared to cut into a dish especially by the time dessert rolls around. You have literally already cut into so much shirt by that point what's the point of being scared to do the very thing folks are there for in the first place? There isn't a point.

In my family especially it is actually considered rude to do that shit. Kids and elderly eat first and often get their plates made for em even and you shouldn't show up with dishes eaten off there. If anything, if you actually serve good food (maybe OP is going to events that don't perhaps?) you have the opposite problem where you better hurry tf up and get it while it is still there. Folks definitely don't tend to have an issue diving in when it's good.

I can't imagine going to an event and folks are just spending hours staring at the dessert or some shit when every dish has been touched. Sounds like a made up issue or something.


chickenlittle53 t1_izmvqhy wrote

I disagree. Where are yall going where folks are scared to eat food at an event designed to do so? Is that pie? Oh no much rather look than eat even though clearly it's there to be eaten and everyone is eating.

If anything if you're going to take a slice do so because you want gurantee you get a slice not because "oh no people are scared to eat food at a food event." Otherwise it's actually considered rude in many folk's households to show up with an incomplete dish you've eaten off of.


chickenlittle53 t1_izmvc8p wrote

Just bring me I guess. I don't get the whole scare factor. The only time I ever hesitate is time for everyone to eat period. Once it's time to eat then I see no issue diving into whatever food is out there to be eaten obviously. Few obvious exceptions would be a wedding cake or bday cake, but those are exceptions and obvious.


chickenlittle53 t1_izmv2qq wrote

I don't know what events you attend, but this has almost never been the case for me or any event I attend. Outside of maybe a wedding for obvious reasons (which you don't want to just slice a piece off the wedding cake) I go to events that's never been an issue.

If anything you would it maybe had a point for the opposite reason. Events I go to you need to cut a piece out so that you actually have a chance to get a slice period. If you had said do so to ensure you get a piece of your own dessert then I would have agreed, but I see no issues with folks wanting dessert in my kind of events.


chickenlittle53 t1_iuibyc5 wrote

Different models are supposed to predict different types of loan risk. Taking out q loan for an auto payment is viewed differently than say a credit card as the terms are a lot different, collateral, etc.

Here's what you and the other guy may not know, FICO isn't the in all be all either and many banks will even use their own model. Chase for example does this. VantageScore is still useful as it gives details about your overall credit make up. Missed payments, crediting utilization, age of credit, etc. It's all there.

You are allowed to pull your actual credit reports at least once a year completely free. As for scores with how many models it will just sort of depend. You can go on the FICO website and get a free estimate with proper info and/or Experian is free to check I believe at least once a week.


chickenlittle53 t1_iui7wzy wrote

My rates actually went down with them about 25% for some reason. I have not questioned it. I don't think it's an age deal either. I keep waiting for some shit to go down so I can bring out the Ole jumping mat, but so far so good.

USAA actually was super overpriced in my old area. Some folks get mad at a particular company, but I see it as they're all mostly viewed the same to me. All the decent ones will be good enough and most will go up for various reasons so I don't hate the company and will go back uf there's evera good deal, but won't hesitate to shop around.